Allowed

K.Ramesh and Another v. Spl.Dy.Collector Tw W.G. and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2004WP/17252/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an eviction order via a writ petition, arguing that prior final orders entitled them to possession requiring the current action to be quashed as arbitrary and against principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the proceedings in S.R.No.2058/2000 are declared illegal and void and quashed; no costs.

K.Ramesh and Another Vs Spl.Dy.Collector Tw W.G. and 2… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 17252 of 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Karatam Ramesh, S/o K. Ramachandra Rao, r/o Buttaigudem, West Godavari District.

¶9

2. Karatam Prabhakar Rao, S/o K. Ramachandra Rao, r/o Buttaigudem, West Godavari District.

¶10

..... PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1. The Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, West Godavari District.

¶13

2. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), K.R.Puram, West Godavari District.

¶14

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the

¶17

circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order, direction, writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the proceedings in S.R.No.2058/2000 dated 04-05-2001 of the Special Deputy Collector (T.W) K. R. Puram, West Godavari district is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P.S.A.L.T. Regulations 1/95 as amended by 1/70 and quash the same.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. P. R .K. AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

2. The petitioner herein filed this writ petition inter alia seeking a Writ of Mandamus challenging the impugned orders dated 04-05-2001 ordering eviction in respect of the land cultivated by him as illegal and void.

¶23

3. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner herein is that in the proceedings initiated earlier, the second respondent herein has already passed an order in S.R.No.75 of 1979 dated 29-08-1980 and the said order, having not been challenged by any proceedings, has become final and, therefore, the respondent could not have been initiated fresh proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1584 of 1998 dated 25-12-2000.

¶24

4. Having considered the submissions made and also having regard to the fact that there is no serious dispute with regard to the earlier orders passed in his favour on 29-08-1980 and especially in view of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, there is no other go except to hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and the impugned action only under the teeth of the said orders.

¶25

5. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

B.PRAKASH RAO, J

Dt.10-09-2004

Glv/Drk

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶30

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this