Dismissed

Smt.Evuri Parvathamma and 2 v. Dist.Collector Guntur and 2

Telangana HC11 Sept 2008WA/1107/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal questioning the acquisition of temple land for ST/SC/BPL housing sites. The court held the appellants failed to prove they were small tenants or that alternate government land was available, thus no violation of acquisition guidelines was found.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; appellants may seek remedy regarding tenancy claims in award proceedings.

Smt.Evuri Parvathamma and 2 Vs Dist.Collector Guntur and 2 — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No :1107 of 1999

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶4

The appellants are the petitioners, who filed WP No.14791 of 1999, questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), for acquiring the land in an extent of Ac.4.91 cents in Survey No.273/1 situated at Chejarla village, Nakarikallu Mandal, Guntur district.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

It is the case of the appellants/petitioners that they are in joint possession of the land in Sy.No.273/1, which belongs to Sri Patapatimma Ammavaru Devasthanam, as cultivating tenants, since 1990. While so, the District Collector, Guntur, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring the said temple lands for public purpose, to provide house sites to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes of the said village while dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry by invoking powers under Section 17(4) of the Act and appointing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, to exercise the powers under Section 4(2) of the Act. 3. The petitioners have raised two contentions viz., as per the guidelines issued under Clause 4(i) in G.O.Ms.No.456 Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, dated 29.09,1995, the government lands can be acquired only when no government or other alternate land is

¶7

available in the particular area; and as per clause 4(ii) of the above order, selection of the endowment lands belonging to small tenants should be avoided from acquisition. It is stated that alternate poramboke lands belonging to the Government are available in the said village and the respondents have violated clauses 4(i) and (ii) of the said government order. It is further stated that as the appellants being the cultivating tenants, have a right to purchase the above endowment lands as contemplated under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act.

¶8

The learned Single Judge rejected the above two contentions on the ground that the petitioners have not placed any material in proof of their contentions either with regard to availability of the government land or with regard to the contention that they are the small farmers. It was further held that in the absence of such plea and proof, and in the absence of necessary facts laid in the affidavit to satisfy the Court that equal or more suitable land for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the community, is available nearby the subject land, interference of the land acquisition proceedings on that ground does not arise. Insofar as the second contention also, it was held that nothing has been placed before the Court to satisfy that they are the small tenants.

¶9

The 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter stating that an extent of Acs.4.91 cents covered by Sy.No.273 of Chejerla village, Nekharikallu Mandal, belonging to Grama Devatha – Sri Patta Patemma Ammavaru, was proposed for acquisition to provide house sites to the weaker sections and the

¶10

Executive Officer of the Temple has consented for the proposed acquisition, since it improves the financial position of the temple.

¶11

It is further stated in the counter that no government land or other suitable patta land, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections, is available nearby the village and, therefore, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act by invoking urgency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act was issued and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published and advance possession of the land was taken by paying 80% of the land value to the Executive Officer of the said temple on 07.08.1999. With regard to the contention that the petitioners are the small tenants, it is stated that the first appellant has got an extent of Ac.5.46 cents; 2^nd appellant has got an extent of Ac.9.05 cents and 3^rd appellant has got Ac.9.03 cents of land. Apart from the above said patta land, the first appellant is cultivating an extent of Ac.1.25 cents, 2^nd appellant is cultivating Ac.2.50 cents and 3^rd appellant is cultivating an extent of Ac.1.25 cents of land in Sy.No.273/1. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the petitioners are the small farmers.

¶12

The learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Muvva Chandrasekhar Rao, submitted that, in fact, possession was taken long back on 07.08.1999 and pattas were granted to the eligible persons, but in view of the status - quo order granted by this Court on 10.08.1999, pattas were not distributed in favour of the beneficiaries.

¶13

Even assuming that the administrative

¶14

instructions issued by the Government in the aforesaid Government Order is applicable to the facts, we do not find any violation of the aforesaid instructions. As stated above, as the appellants have failed to establish that they are small tenants and that alternate suitable government land is available for providing house sites, we do not find any merits in the appeal. However, it is open for the appellants to participate in the award proceedings insofar as the claim of tenancy is concerned and seek appropriate remedy available under law.

¶15

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶16

__________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.09.2008 bss

Smt.Evuri Parvathamma and 2 v. Dist.Collector Guntur and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Evuri Parvathamma and 2 v. Dist.Collector Guntur and 2

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

Medical and Health Family Welfare Dept Vs v.Vani and Ors.

Toody Co-op. Society, Bhoiguda Kaman, Toddy Group, Vs The Excise Superintendent,(Excise and Prohibition)

Wyitha Maryjohn and 5 Vs Sec Medical Health and Fmailyplanning an

Syed Azam Hyd. Vs the Dist Collector. Hyd

Adusumalli Seetha Ramaiah Ongole Vs Mandlapu Raghunayakulu and 49

P.Shankara Reddy Vs Secy. Endowments Dept. Hyd 4 Ors.