Disposed

Md. Moinuddin v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC12 Apr 2005WP/8063/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the legality of show-cause notices issued for the cancellation of house-site pattas in Gramakantam land. The court dismissed the petition as premature since no adverse order had been passed, yet granted liberty to file responses and stayed interference with possession until the matter is fully heard.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to submit explanations and directing respondents not to interfere with possession till orders are passed.

Md. Moinuddin Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8063 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Md. Moinuddin S/o. Nooruddin

¶8

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶9

2 Smt. Y. Bhanumani, W/o. Late Sitaramanjuneyulu

¶10

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶11

3 Smt. Kammili Satyavathi W/o. Ananda Rao

¶12

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶13

4 Abdul Raheem @ Raheemuddin S/o. Pentu Saheb

¶14

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶15

5 Md. Galeeb S/o. Md. Haleem

¶16

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶17

6 Shaik Jani S/o. Shaik Ahammed Saheb

¶18

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶19

7 A. Suryanarayana S/o. Sivaiah

¶20

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶21

8 Chukka Vijaya Kumar S/o. Suryanarayana

¶22

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶23

9 Smt. Aabeedunnissa, W/o. Rahamuddin

¶24

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District. 10 Chodagam Nagamohan Rao S/o. Yedukondalu

¶25

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District. 11 Samiunnissa W/o. Ibrahim

¶26

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶27

12 Makasi Bhaskara Rao S/o. Krishna Rao

¶28

All Petitioners are R/o. Kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District.

¶29

... PETITIONERS

¶30

AND

¶31

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, at Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶32

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaikalur, Krishna District.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in R.C.A.No. 50/2005 dt. 29-3-2005 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer for the purpose of canceling the and house sites of the petitioners situated in Sy.No. 441 of kaikalur Village & Mandal, Krishna District is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶36

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The petitioners were assigned different extents of land situated in Sy.No.441 of Kaikalur Village as house-sites.

¶39

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notices issued by the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaikalur, in which it was alleged that the petitioners have violated the conditions of grant and that apart the land in question is required for the purpose of construction of a Government Homoeo Hospital and therefore calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notices as to why the grant in their favour should not be

¶40

cancelled.

¶41

The said notices dated 29-03-2005 are questioned in this writ petition, primarily on the ground that the 2^nd respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for cancellation of pattas since the land in question being Gramakantam land is vested with the Gram Panchayat. It is also contended that the allegation of non-compliance of the conditions of patta is factually incorrect.

¶42

Since admittedly the impugned notices are only show-cause notices, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to raise all the objections including the objection that the pattas cannot be cancelled without reference to the Gram Panchayat, before the 2^nd respondent, in which event, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. Since as on today there is no adverse order as such, this writ petition is premature and cannot be entertained.

¶43

However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the impugned proceedings are initiated at the instance of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority, the petitioners apprehend that the Mandal Revenue Officer may not consider the explanation of the petitioners independently. On a perusal of the material on record, I do not find any basis for the allegation that the impugned proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition on that ground.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioners to submit their explanation in response to the impugned notices within a period of two weeks from today, in which event, the same will be considered by the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. Till such orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question.

¶45

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

G. ROHINI, J

¶47

Dated: 12-04-2005

¶48

Note: Furnish C.C. by Tuesday.

¶49

B/o.

¶50

LSK

¶51

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

¶53

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, at Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶54

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kaikalur, Krishna District.

¶55

3 Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶56

4 Two C.D. copies.

Md. Moinuddin v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Moinuddin v. The Revenue Divisional 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

Ekaldevi Narender Vs The Government of India

G. Krishnamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Abdul Altaf Aziz Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Ch.Venkat Rao, Vs The Divisional Forest officer

Krishnaveni All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers Vs The District Level Committee for Sand

Shettypally Balaiah, Vs The Joint Collector