High Court disposed of writ petition challenging dispossession from assigned land despite stay order, directing Joint Collector to expedite pending revision and maintain status quo.
Directed Joint Collector to dispose of revision petition expeditiously and maintain status quo till such time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7493 of 2008
Between:
S. Pentaiah, S/o. late Balaramulu, R/o. D.No.6-116/1, Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar,Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Survey Nos.220/8, Ac.2.00, Sy.No.220/17, Ac.2.33 guntas and Sy.No.220/25, Ac.1.37 guntas thus in total Ac.6.30 guntas situated at Peddashapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District, purchased by the petitioner on the strength of the No objection certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 29.1.2005 and 20.4.2005, in File No.C/151/05 and B/1703/04 respectively, contrary to the stay orders granted by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.E1/7126/07dated 19.12.2007 as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide;
Counsel for the Petitioner : MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Survey Nos.220/8, 220/17, 220/25 in an extent of Ac.2.00, Ac.2.33 guntas and - Ac.1.37 guntas respectively, totally admeasuring Ac.6.30 guntas situated at Peddashapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District, purchased by the petitioner on the strength of the ‘No objection Certificates’ issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 29.1.2005 and 20.4.2005, in File No.C/151/05 and B/1703/04, the present writ petition is filed.
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.
Brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that one K.Ravinder Reddy and D.Pratap Reddy were exservicemen. They were assigned certain extents of lands by the respondents. As they intended to sell the lands assigned to them to the petitioner, they approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for issue of ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of sale of the lands. Accordingly, in view of G.O.Ms.No.1117, the Mandal Revenue Officer has granted the certificate sought for in respect of the lands in S.Nos.220/8, 17 and 31. Similarly, the Mandal Revenue Officer by letter dated 20.4.2005 issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ in respect of the land in S.No.220/17 admeasuring 2.33 guntas, S.No.220/25 admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas, totaling Ac.4.30 guntas. Basing on the ‘No Objection Certificates’ issued, it is stated that the petitioner purchased the lands from K.Ravinder Reddy vide registered sale deed No.4964/2002 and from Pratap Reddy vide registered sale deed No.12637/2005. Thus, in all, the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.6.30 guntas from both the ex-servicemen. While the matters stood
thus, the Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders under Section 3 of the A.P.Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 on the ground that there is a violation of the assignment order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District who granted stay of all further proceedings on 3.4.2007. Ultimately, the said appeal was dismissed on 24.11.2007. Questioning the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, who by order dated 19.12.2007 passed the following order staying all further proceedings.
“Stay granted on the orders of the RDO, Chevella Division in file No.D/953/2007 dated 24.11.2007, till the date of next hearing. The matter has been taken up for enquiry before the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and posted for hearing on 29.12.2007 at 3.00 p.m.
You are, therefore, required to be present on the said date and time either in person or through counsel and defend the case, failing which the matter will be decided on the material available on record.”
The grievance of the petitioner is that even while the above order is in force, the District Collector by order dated 13.3.2008 in proceedings No.Lo1/3461/2007 has allotted an extent of Ac.10.00 of land in S.No.220 situated at Peddashapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal for the purpose of construction of a bus station and hence he filed the present writ petition seeking the relief stated above.
On 8.4.2008, when the matter was taken up, learned Government Pleader for Revenue took notice for the respondents and sought time to get instructions. Today, it is stated that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Joint Collector is pending and without knowing that the District Collector has passed the impugned order and sought for a direction from this Court to dispose of the writ petition by giving appropriate directions to the authorities.
In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter the writ petition is disposed of directing the Joint Collector to consider
and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously and till such time status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties in all respects.
N.V.RAMANA,J
Dt.18.4.2008 msv
.... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
5. 2CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd (OUT)
6. 2CD copies
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner entitled to maintain status quo while revision pending regarding disputed possession of assigned land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Pentaiah
The State of A.P.
N.V. RAMANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
