Disposed

Pentakoti Seetharamaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District

Telangana HC16 Apr 2008WP/6/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction from agricultural land. The Court directed the petitioner to submit an explanation to a show cause notice within three weeks. Pending this, the petitioner is not to be evicted, dismissing the immediate eviction plea as premature.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit explanation within three weeks; stay on eviction pending submission and consideration of explanation.

Pentakoti Seetharamaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pentakoti Seetharamaiah S/o. Saidu

¶8

R/o. Buddharaiula Cheruvu, H/o. Konithivada, Veeravasram, West Godavari District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, W.G. District, Eluru, W.G. District.

¶12

2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapuram, W.G. District.

¶13

3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or orders direction or directions writ or writs particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in evicting the petitioner from the lands to the extent of 1 acre 50 cents situated in R.S.No. 392/3 and 7 Ballusugoiah Pallem Veeravasra Mandalam, W.G. District without passing any orders is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(i)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.L.N.SWAMY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents situated in RS No.392/3 and 7 situate at Ballusugoiah Pallem, Veeravasra Mandalam, West Godavari without passing any orders.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land in question having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2001. While so, on 10.12.2007 the 3^rd respondent issued a show cause notice in Form-II as per Rule of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer)Act, 1978 on the ground that he is in possession of the said land contrary to SubSection (2) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. To the said notice, it is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.12.2007 to the 3^rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any orders on the said explanation, the 3^rd respondent came to his lands on 1.1.2008 and tried to evict him from the said lands and directed him not to raise any crop on the said land. Hence this writ petition.

¶23

This Court 4.1.2008 issued notice to the respondents and directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions stated that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and, therefore, no final orders were passed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

In view of the above, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition

¶25

with a direction to the petitioner submit one more explanation to the show cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. On such explanation being submitted, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the subject matter of lands.

¶26

N.V.RAMANA,J

¶27

DT.16.4.2008 Note: Issue CC in 3 days. (B/o) msv

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, W.G. District, Eluru, W.G. District.

¶33

2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapuram, W.G. District.

¶34

3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Veeravasaram Mandal, W.G. District.

¶35

4 2CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd (OUT)

¶36

5 2CD copies

Pentakoti Seetharamaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pentakoti Seetharamaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District

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

Chilukuri Satyanarayana S/o Bhoomaiah Vs The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar

Cmc Limited, a public limited company incorporated under Vs The Tahsildar (Deputy Collector cadre)

M.A. Hameed Khan Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam, Vs The State of a.P., Rep by its Prl.Secretary Revenue Dept.

Akella Sri Yejan Narayana Murty S/o Rama Sastry Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its

Sutapalli Panduranga Rao Vs The Tahsildar