Disposed

Gurrala Narasaiah, v. The District Collector, Medak District

Telangana HC13 Apr 2005WP/8178/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while disposing of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merit, directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of assigned land unless the patta granted in the petitioner's favour ceases to exist.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession without following due process of law, if the patta is subsisting.

Gurrala Narasaiah, Vs The District Collector, Medak… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8178 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gurrala Narasaiah, S/o.Narayana, R/o Jinnaram Village & mandal, Medak District

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Medak, Medak District

¶13

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will 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 petitioner's possession and enjoyment and trying to evict from the assigned land in Ac. 3.00 in Sy.No.1002 of Jinnaram Village, Medak District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the assigned land in Ac. 3.00 in Sy.No.1002, Jinnaram Vilalge, Medak District without following the due process of law and in this connection we have also made a representation to the 1st respondent on 13-122004.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SITA RAM

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶19

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.8178 OF 2005

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignments appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 situated in Sy.No.1002 of Jinnaram Vilalge, Medak District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶24

The petitioner states that the said land was assigned in his favour long back in the year 1987 and the patta is still subsisting. It is alleged that the respondents herein have been taking steps to dispossess the petitioner highhandedly in spite of the fact that the patta granted in his favour is still subsisting. Hence, this writ petition.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on merit, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question without following due process of law, if the patta granted in favour of the petitioner is subsisting as on today.

¶26

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶27

G.ROHINI, J

¶28

13^th April, 2005

¶29

Note:

¶30

Furnish CC within one week.

B/o.

SKM

1 The District Collector, Medak District at Sanga reddy

¶35

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Medak, Medak District

¶36

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District

¶37

4 Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Revenue,

¶38

High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT)

¶39

5 Two C.D. copies.

¶40

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}

Gurrala Narasaiah, v. The District Collector, Medak District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurrala Narasaiah, v. The District Collector, Medak District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao Vs The District Collector and Executive Magistrate

Lakshmi Kantha, Vs The Commissioner

D.Sukumar, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad