Dismissed

C.Ramachandra Reddy, v. the District Collector

Telangana HC8 Dec 2006WP/25559/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding patta and alleged eviction, the court held that without orders from the Settlement Officer, petitioners cannot be evicted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with observations dispelling doubts regarding pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

None granted; observations made that petitioners cannot be evicted until specific proceeding orders are passed. Dismissal with no costs.

C.Ramachandra Reddy, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25559 of 2006

¶3

Dated:08.12.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

C.Ramachandra Reddy and others.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The District Collector and another.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.25559 of 2006

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioners are legal heirs of one late Eswara Reddy, who was allegedly in possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Acs.31.50 cents in Survey No.1 (part) situated at Chiyyavaram Village of Thottambedu Mandal in Chittoor District. They approached the Settlement Officer for ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking patta. The same was rejected by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer by proceedings dated 04.02.2003. The petitioners preferred a revision under Section 5(2) of the Act before the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements, who remanded the matter to the original authority. The matter is still pending before the authority as alleged by the petitioners. It is now further alleged that the subordinate officials of the second respondent without any further orders are trying to evict the petitioners. The petitioners therefore, seek an appropriate writ.

¶14

At the stage of admission itself, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A) submits that the Writ Petition is filed on a mere apprehension, and therefore, this Court observes that unless and until, appropriate orders are passed by the Joint Collector-cumSettlement Officer in Roc.F6/1113/2005, dated 30.06.2005, the petitioners cannot be evicted. This observation would dispel any doubt in the mind of the subordinate officials of the second respondent.

¶15

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶16

____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2006 Note: Issue C.C in three days. B/o. vs

C.Ramachandra Reddy, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramachandra Reddy, v. the District Collector

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

Sri Mada Babu Rao, Vs Sri Nayudu Srinivas Rao

O.Obulesu Vs The Govt. of A.P

Puchalapalli Adisesha Reddy, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Mohd. Aneesuddin Hyderabad. Vs the Assistant Engineer Hyderabad and Another

Baswada Sathi Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.Narayana Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal