Disposed

M. Venkatesham v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar.

Telangana HC4 Apr 2008WP/7352/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition filed by a physically handicapped petitioner to prevent eviction from allotted agricultural land. The court directed the respondents not to evict the petitioner until his explanation to the show cause notice was considered and appropriate orders were passed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to evict the petitioner from the land in question till his explanation to the show cause notice is considered and appropriate orders are passed.

M. Venkatesham Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7352 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

M. Venkatesham S/o. Guravaiah

¶7

presently R/o. H.No. 20-574, Gandhi Nagar, Huzurabad,Karimnagar District.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar.

¶11

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar.

¶12

3 The District Collector, Karimnagar.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his agricultural land admeasuring Ac 3-00 guntas situated in Sy.No. 120 Teegalaguttapalli (Arepally) VIllage, Karimnagar Mandal and District as per notice bearing No. B1/125/07 dt. 5-9-2007 without considering petitioner's explanation dt. 10-9-2007 and without passing final orders as arbitrary and illegal.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a physically handicapped and landless person. He was allotted agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in S.No.120 in Teegalaguttapally Village in the year 1970 by the 1^st respondent and a patta certificate was also issued to him vide certificate No.A3/6226/70 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture. While so, the 1^st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has issued a notice dated 5.9.2007 to the petitioner stating that he has not brought the land under cultivation within three years and keeping the land as barren against the conditions imposed while giving the assignment and, therefore he was directed to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.9.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any orders on his explanation, the authorities are trying to dispossess him from the land in question and hence this writ petition.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Since the petitioner has already submitted his explanation to the show cause notice, it is agreed by both the learned counsel that unless and until the explanation submitted by the petitioner is considered and a reasoned order is passed, the respondents shall not evict the petitioners from the land in question.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land in question till his

¶22

explanation to the show cause notice is considered and appropriate orders are passed.

¶23

N.V.RAMANA,J

¶24

Dt.4.4.2008

¶25

NOTE: Furnish CC in 3 days. (B/o) msv

¶26

.... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER

¶27

¶28

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar.

¶29

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar.

¶30

3 The District Collector, Karimnagar.

¶31

4. 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

¶32

5. 2CD copies

M. Venkatesham v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Venkatesham v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar.

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

S.v.Shankar Reddy Vs The District Collector, District Ranga Reddy District

Mohd. Ahmed Ali Vs The District Collector

Smt. H. Sridevi, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Smt.a. Girija Reddy Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Qamer Educational Society, Rep. by its President, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Polepalli Satyanarayana Vs The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole