Disposed

Chadala Janakirama Rao v. The Deputy Executive Engineer

Telangana HC15 Jun 2006WP/9309/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by the petitioner regarding the non-assignment and attempted dispossession of government land. It directed the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession or attempt eviction without adhering to the due process of law, noting that broader directions were unavailable due to missing parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession of the land and not to attempt to dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law.

Chadala Janakirama Rao Vs The Deputy Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

Dated:15-06-2006 W.P.NO.9309 OF 2004

¶3

Between: Chadala Janakirama Rao Petitioner

¶4

And

¶5

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Nandigama, Krishna District and others

¶6

Respondents

¶7

W.P.No. 2840 OF 2006

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chadala Janakirama Rao Petitioner

¶10

And

¶11

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

¶12

Respondents

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶14

W.P.No.9309 OF 2004 AND W.P.No. 2840 OF 2006

¶15

COMMON ORDER:

¶16

1. Heard Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions and also Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶17

2. Writ petition No.9309 of 2004 is filed for issuance of the writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not assigning the lands in Survey Nos. 471/2, 472/3 admeasuring Ac.2-04 cents at Nandigama Village, Krishna District as null and void and pass such other suitable orders.

¶18

3 . The self-same writ petitioner filed yet another writ petition No.2840 of 2006 praying for issuance of any writ or order more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law as null and void and pass such other suitable orders.

¶19

4 . It is stated by the petitioner that he has been serving the Scheduled Tribe community and the petitioner also had narrated several other details in relation to the prior writ petitions and also several proceedings. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the communication made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandigama to the District Collector, Krishna, Machiliipatanm, where under the Mandal Revenue Officer had stated that since the land under reference is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the applicant through lease order of the Zilla Parishad authorities since a long time of about 40 years and he is using a part of the land serving the Scheduled Tribe people as stated above, the Zilla Parishad authorities may be addressed to give them consent to allot this land to Sri Chadala Janaki Ramaiah, the President “Andhra Rastra Adimajathi Sevak Sangh” on payment of market value to enable him to serve the Scheduled Tribe people and weaker Sections.

¶20

5. Sri M.Prabhakar Rao, however would submit that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to make such an order, inasmuch as this property belongs to Zilla Parishad.

¶21

6. Be that as it may, it is also stated that certain representations in this regard were made by the petitioner and the same were disposed of. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner except following the due process of law. Except giving the aforesaid direction, no further directions can be issued in this regard, inasmuch as the other concerned parties are not made parties.

¶22

7. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs.

¶23

P.S.NARAYANA,J

¶24

15-06-2006

¶25

Stp

Chadala Janakirama Rao v. The Deputy Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chadala Janakirama Rao v. The Deputy Executive Engineer

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

Manchala Ramanaiah Vs The DIstrict Level Committee for Sand Auctions

Muthyala Veerendra Babu Vs Collector (Pw) East Godavari District at Kakinada.

M/s.Nandipati Rajya Lakshmi Mines, Vs The Government of India

Chadala Janakirama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Marvel Minerals, Vs The General Manager

Setti Gangadhara Swamy, Vs The govt ofA.P., rep. by its Secretary