Allowed

Sri Shiridi Saibaba Samsthan Trust, v. The Government of a.P., Rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC15 Feb 2007WP/34482/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dispossession of temple land by police officials. The Court held that while rival title claims cannot be examined, respondents cannot take unilateral coercive steps without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's possession without following due process of law.

Sri Shiridi Saibaba Samsthan Trust, Vs The Government… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34482 of 1997

¶3

Dated 15^th February 2007

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Shiridi Saibaba Samsthan Trust, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad, represented by its Chairman, S.Ramachandra Rao.

¶6

………Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The Government of Anhdhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Assignment-III) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

………..Respondents.

¶10

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.34482 of 1997

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in trying dispossess the petitioner from the land in S.No.31/2 of Gaddiannaram Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to an extent of 358 Square Yards, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

The petitioner is a Trust-Sri Shiridi Saibaba Samsthanam, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Trust Board of the petitioner passed a resolution requesting the Government to alienate the vacant site to an extent of 358 Square yards just opposite side to the temple abutting the Saroornagar Police Station. Pursuant thereto, the 1^st respondent by letter dated 4-4-1997 requested the petitioner to submit a requisition in prescribed pro-forma which was complied with and consequently,

¶15

the 1^st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.1041, Revenue (Assignment-III) Department, dated 10-12-1997 alienating the land in question in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs.800/- per Square Yard.

¶16

The said amount was paid on 11-12-1997 and thereafter the site was handed over to the petitioner under a panchanama conducted by the 3^rd respondent.

¶17

While the petitioner was taking up of construction in the said site, it is alleged that the respondents 4 and 5 who are the police officials made hectic efforts to dispossess the petitioner’s temple. Hence, this writ petition.

¶18

In response to the Rule Nisi ordered, the Circle Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station, filed a counter stating that the land assigned by the Revenue Department was resumed long back and therefore, the petitioner was restrained from trespassing into the land in question. The claim of the petitioner that they are holding title and possession of the land in question has been denied and it is stated that the action being taken by the respondents 4 and 5 is only to maintain the law and order.

¶19

The rival claims made with regard to the title and possession of the land in question cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court. However, the fact remains

¶20

that the petitioner has already raised certain structures on the land in question and the same has been in possession of the temple which is being used for the purpose of Nityanna Dana Scheme. In the circumstances, even assuming that the petitioner had trespassed into the said land, the respondents 5 and 6 cannot take any coercive steps unilaterally without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their version.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question without following due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶22

________________

¶23

(G.ROHINI, J)

¶24

Dated: 15^th February 2007 mrb

Sri Shiridi Saibaba Samsthan Trust, v. The Government of a.P., Rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shiridi Saibaba Samsthan Trust, v. The Government of a.P., Rep.by its Secretary

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

P.Baby Prashanti, Vs Govternment of Andhra Pradesh

Somasila Project Mumpu Badithula Seva Sangham, Vs Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

Karri Venkateswara Rao Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

G.Meeraiah, Vs The Registrar, University of Health Sciences

B.Nagamma, Vs the District Collector

Kanchustambam Venkateswara Rao Vs Mandal Revenue Officer