Dismissed

Turpati Satyanarayana, v. The Agent to the Government/District Collector

Telangana HC14 Feb 2008WP/18377/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that respondents cannot initiate eviction proceedings without first complying with a mandatory direction to issue notices given in an earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 14072 of 1986). The petition was disposed of directing respondents to follow prior orders and prescribed legal procedures.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to follow the directions of the W.P.No.14072 of 1986 order and follow legal procedure for eviction if liable.

Turpati Satyanarayana, Vs The Agent to the… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.18377 OF 2001

¶6

Between:

¶7

Turpati Satyanarayana and others.

¶8

.... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Agent to the Government/District Collector, E.G. District at Kakinada, And others.

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.18377 OF 2001

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Petitioners who claim that they are in possession of Ac.7-28 cents in Sy.No.17/1, D.Ramavaram Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, filed this petition contending that when the respondents tried to evict them by force earlier, they filed W.P.No.14072 of 1986, which was disposed of on 21.02.1989 directing the respondents to issue notices to them and consider their case relating to the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.41 (Revenue (E) Department, dated 12.01.1971 and dispose of the case according to law and till the disposal of the case, status-quo as on that day should be continued. and that respondents even without issuing any notice to them, are trying to evict them high-handedly from the said land, and so, the action of the respondents in trying to evict them by force, without complying with the order dated 21.02.1989 in W.P.No.14072 of 1986 may be declared as illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

2. On behalf of the respondents, the third respondent (Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala) filed his counter-affidavit inter alia contending that the land in Sy.No.17/1 of D.Ramavaram village is

¶17

classified as assessed waste and that the petitioners, who are non-tribals, had encroached into that land by exploiting the poor and illiterate tribals and as some of the poor tribals made a representation to him requesting him to evict the petitioners and assign the said land to them, when he is trying to initiate action to evict the encroachers under A.P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905, petitioners filed this petition. As this Court in W.P.No.9551 of 1988, dated 11.10.1996 held that the land situated in scheduled area has to be assigned to the landless poor tribals residing in that area and that the earlier G.O. issued by the Government ordering that land can be assigned to non-tribals was struck down, even if the petitioners are landless poor, they are liable to be evicted under the Land Encroachment Act as they are non-tribals, and so, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

3. Respondents did not produce any document to show that any notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioners in pursuance of the directions given to them in W.P.No.14072 of 1986. When this Court gave a direction to the respondents in W.P.No.14072 of 1986 as to what they should do before they take further action, they are bound to follow that direction, and so, they cannot initiate proceedings without issuing notice to the petitioners as directed in the earlier writ petition.

¶19

As there is nothing on record to show that any notice, in compliance with the directions given in W.P.No.14072 of 1986, was issued to the petitioners and as the deponent to affidavit filed on behalf of respondents did not deny the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application about the threats being held out relating to the forcible eviction of the petitioners, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to

¶20

scrupulously follow the directions given in W.P.No.14072 of 1986, if they want to evict the petitioners and follow the procedure prescribed by law for their eviction if they are liable to be evicted. Petitioners are entitled to costs of the petition. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

¶21

JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶22

14^th FEBRUARY, 2008 PGS

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶24

W.P.NO.18377 OF 2001

¶25

14^TH FEBRUARY, 2008

Turpati Satyanarayana, v. The Agent to the Government/District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Turpati Satyanarayana, v. The Agent to the Government/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

Arava Dass Vs The General Manager

K.Mohan Prasad Vs Hmwssb by Gm Secbad

M. Giddareddy Vs Commissioner

Lakshmi Rice Mill Vs The Senior Branch Manager

K.Nageswara Rao Vs The Palakol Municipality

Kosanam Satish Kumar, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation