Quashed

Jabbu Venkata Reddy v. The District Collector/Agent to Government

Telangana HC6 Jun 2007WP/4929/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the occurrence of proceedings without notice to the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned order directing recovery of money and possession due to lack of jurisdiction and absence of an opportunity of being heard. It was left open for the claimant to file a suit for recovery.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in Reference No. B.228/2000 dated 25.01.2000 were set aside and disposed of.

Jabbu Venkata Reddy Vs The District… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 4929 of 2000

¶3

DATED: 06.06.2007

¶4

Between: Jabbu Venkata Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The District Collector/Agent to Government, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and others. .. Respondents.

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.4929 of 2000

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the proceedings in Ref:B.228/2000, dated 25.01.2000, issued by the second respondentRevenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, addressing the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to recover an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and also to hand over the possession of vacant site to the fifth respondent, which is alleged to be in the possession of the petitioner, and, which the fifth respondent is claiming it to be her property.

¶9

Initially, the fifth respondent had filed a revision before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, stating that the petitioner had married her and also took money from her, but however, he deserted her and is not repaying the said money to her. Basing on the said representation, an urgent notice, dated 05.01.1998, was issued in Ref.No.C/41/97 for the petitioner’s appearance before the Mandal Revenue Officer on 07.01.1998. Further, another notice was also issued to the petitioner in the month of April, 1998. But, subsequently, these impugned orders came to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, in which directions are issued to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, to recover the said amount from the petitioner and also to take steps for handing over of the possession of the vacant site by the petitioner,

¶10

which is alleged to be in his possession, and which is claimed by the fifth respondent to be her property.

¶11

In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that even assuming that any amount is due from him, it is open for the fifth respondent to file a suit for recovery of money under the agency rules, but however, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, has no jurisdiction to issue any directions to the Mandal Revenue Officer to recover the said amount from the petitioner.

¶12

In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, it is stated that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the fifth respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2000 with regard to her claim for possession of the vacant site and obtained injunction orders.

¶13

With regard to the fifth respondent’s claim for recovery of money or for handing over the possession of vacant site from the petitioner, it is always open to the fifth respondent to file a suit before the Agency Court under the agency rules, but, however, on a mere representation, no order could have been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to recover the said amount and also for taking steps to handover the possession of the vacant site as claimed by the fifth respondent. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings also, there is no indication of issuing any prior notice or of giving an opportunity to the petitioner before issuing directions by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Inasmuch as the impugned order is without any jurisdiction, it is liable to be set aside.

¶14

In view of the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings in Ref.B.228/2000, dated 25.01.2000, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to recover the amount from the petitioner, as claimed by the fifth respondent, and also of handing over the possession of the vacant site by the petitioner, which is claimed by the fifth respondent as that of her property, is hereby set aside. However, either for recovery of money or for handing over the possession of vacant site by the petitioner, it is open for the fifth respondent to take steps in accordance with law to recover the same either under Agency rules or otherwise.

¶15

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

__________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY,J) Dt.06.06.2007 v v

Jabbu Venkata Reddy v. The District Collector/Agent to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabbu Venkata Reddy v. The District Collector/Agent to Government

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 Padma Committe Aided Elementary School, Vs The Govt of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology Vs The All India Council for Technical Education

Sri. Y.Raja Sharma, Vs The Executive Engineer

Seetharam, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Mohammad Hussain, Vs The Registrar, Ntr Unversity of

Miss. P.Jayalakshmi Vs The District Collector