Allowed

Mynampati Sriramulu, v. The Manadal Revenue officer

Telangana HC14 Dec 2004WP/23138/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five petitioners challenge the actions of revenue authorities preventing them from cultivating assigned land. The court held that assignees have the right to use land and cannot be prevented without orders. Respondents can only terminate assignments or impose conditions after giving notice.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioners' enjoyment of assigned lands; authorities may cancel or impose conditions only after issuing notice.

Mynampati Sriramulu, Vs The Manadal Revenue officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs: 23020, 23138, 23139, 23151, 23168 and 23172 of 2004

¶7

W.P.NO.23020 OF 2004:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Patcha Ramanamma W/o Patcha Vengaiah, R/o Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Varikuntapadu Village & Mandal, Nellore District 2 The Panchayat Secretary, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District 3 The President, Guvvadi Gram Panchayat, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land without following due process of law is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents situated in survey No. 8 of Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District without following due process of law.

¶15

W.P.NO : 23138 of 2004

¶16

Between:

¶17

Mynampati Sriramulu, S/o.Venkatasubbaiah, R/o.Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶18

... PETITIONER

¶19

AND

¶20

1 The Manadal Revenue officer, Varikuntapadu Village & Mandal, Nellore District.

¶21

2 The Panchayat Secretary, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District. 3 The President, Guvvadi Gram Panchayat, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land without following due process of law is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in survey No.8 of Guvvadi village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore district without following due process of law.

¶24

W.P.NO: 23139 of 2004

¶25

Between:

¶26

Patcha Vengaiah, S/o. Patcha Venkaiah, R/o. Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal,

¶27

Nellore District.

¶28

... PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Varikuntapadu Village & Mandal, Nellore District.

¶31

2 The Panchayat Secretary, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶32

3 The President, Guvvadi Gram Panchayat,

¶33

Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶34

.....RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner not to proceed with the cultivation on the lands assigned to the petitioner without issuing any notice is arbitrary unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Survey No. 9 of Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District without following due process of law.

¶36

W.P.NO : 23151 of 2004

¶37

Between:

¶38

Mynampati Venkata Ratnam, S/o. Venkatasubbaiah, R/o. Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶39

... PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Varikuntapadu Village & Mandal, Nellore District.

¶42

2 The Panchayat Secretarty, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶43

3 The President, Guvvadi Gram Panchayat, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

¶46

consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.2.43 cents situated in Survey No. 8 of Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District without following due process of law.

¶47

W.P.NO: 23168 of 2004

¶48

Between: Mynampati Venkata Rao, S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Varikuntapadu Village & Mandal, Nellore District. 2 The Panchayat Secretary, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District. 3 The President, Guvvadi Gram Panchayat,

¶49

Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner not to proceed with the cultivation on the lands assigned to the petitioner without issuing any notice is arbitrary unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Survey No. 5 of Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District without following due process of law.

¶52

W.P.NO: 23172 of 2004

¶53

Between:

¶54

Mynampati Subbamma, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶55

... PETITIONER

¶56

AND

¶57

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Varikuntapadu Village & Mandal, Nellore District. 2 The Panchayat Secretary, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District. 3 The President, Guvvadi Gram Panchayat, Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District.

¶58

...RESPONDENTS

¶59

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner not to proceed with the cultivation on the lands assigned to the petitioner without issuing any notice is arbitrary unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Survey No. 5 of Guvvadi Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District without following due process of law.

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR (in all) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE(in all)

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: MR.D.SRINIVAS (in all)

¶62

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶63

COMMON ORDER:

¶64

The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions claim that they have been assigned various extents of land by the concerned revenue authorities. They complain that agriculture could not be carried on for the past few years on account of drought condition, and when they were taking steps to resume agriculture, the respondents are preventing them, without passing any orders.

¶65

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶66

The petitioners claim to have been assigned lands. As long as the assignments are in force, the assignees shall be entitled to put the land to use, in accordance with the terms and conditions of such assignment. If the assignees are found to have violated any condition of such assignment, it shall be open to the competent authorities to terminate the same, or to impose such conditions as are necessary. There cannot be any justification to prevent the petitioners from putting the land to use, without passing any orders. If the respondents find that the petitioners have violated any condition of assignment, nothing prevents them from terminating the assignments themselves.

¶67

Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing that the respondents shall not interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in question, as long as the assignments are in force and the lands are put to proper use. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to take steps against the petitioners either by imposing conditions, or to cancel the assignments, in case they are found to have violated any condition. Before taking any such steps, the petitioners shall be put on notice. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

14^th December, 2004

¶69

Note: Issue copy in three days.

(B/o)

pan

4 Two C.Cs to the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶75

5 Two C.Cs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶76

6 Two C.D.copies.

Mynampati Sriramulu, v. The Manadal Revenue officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mynampati Sriramulu, v. The Manadal Revenue officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kommagiri Sudharani W/o Rajasekhar Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Pagiri Marri. Satyanarayana, Vs Arun K. Sharma

Kasi Chittibabu S/o Appanna Vs The Joint Collector Civil Supplies Wing)

Ch. Brahmanandam, Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District

Gabbata Lingaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

N. Kalpana, Vs The Government of A.P.