WP/24542/2004 of Bathini Venkat Reddy Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 24542 of 2004

Between:

Bathini Venkat Reddy, S/o Seethareddy, Dindichintapally Village of Vangoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District.

2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Mahabubnagar District.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vangoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the impunged orders bearing No.Lr.No.E1/3818/2004, dt. 04/11/2004 asarbitrary, illegal and void and consequently set aside the same.

For the Petitioner: MR. K. SRINIVAS, Advocate For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

The Court at the stage of admission made the following :

It is the case of the petitioner that though the suit filed by him in O.S. No.66 of 2004is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District fordeclaration of his title and perpetual injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.0-10guntas of land in Survey No.470/2 of Dindichintapally village, Vangoor Mandal ofMahabubnagar District, which was assigned to him by the Government on 26-02-2004 on payment of market value, and also for declaration of the show-cause noticedated 07-08-2004 issued by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in respect of theland as illegal and void; and though respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein, who are party-defendants in O.S. No.66 of 2004, represented through Assistant GovernmentPleader, gave undertaking before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kalwakurthy on 12-08-2004 to the effect that they would not interfere in the possession of petitionerover the land in question, the first respondent issued the impugned order dated 04-11-2004 cancelling the assignment of the petitioner in respect of the land anddirecting the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to take over possession ofthe land from the petitioner. Assailing the impugned order of the first respondent, thepetitioner filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forRevenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Inasmuch as the impugned order was said to have been issued by the firstrespondent canceling the assignment of the petitioner for the land and directingtaking over possession of the land from the petitioner, in spite of his undertakingbefore the civil court not to interfere in the possession of petitioner over the land inquestion, and that too during the pendency of the civil suit, the proper remedy opento the petitioner is to file a contempt case before the Court in which the suit filed byhim is pending.

Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Nocosts.

Date: 29-12-2004

Svv

______________

N.V. RAMANA, J

To

1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District.

2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Mahabubnagar District.

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vangoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Mahabubnagar District.

4 Two CCs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

5 Two CD copies.