Dismissed

P. Krishna Priya, v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC4 Nov 2008WP/8000/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing revenue authorities to consider a representation for regularization of an encroachment of 4 guntas of land under G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 26.10.1995. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to regularize highly valuable land encroached upon in 1990.

What the court decided

AI extract

P. Krishna Priya, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8000 of 2001

¶5

Between:

¶6

P. Krishna Priya, w/o.P.Venkateswara Rao, r/o.H.No.2-115, Fateh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶10

2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District.

¶11

3 District Collector,

¶12

R.R.District at Hyderabad.

¶13

4 Government of A.P., Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and consider the representation of the petitoner dated 10-12-1997 for regularisation of encrroachment of an extent of 4 guntas of land in Survey No. 123, Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 26-10-1995 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said extent of land, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶20

Writ Petition No.8000 OF 2001

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.12.1997 for regularization of encroachment of an extent of 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.123, Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in terms o G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 26.10.1995.

¶23

The petitioner claims to have constructed his house over the said extent of 4 guntas in the year 1990 and to have submitted a representation to the respondents to regularize the encroachment on payment of market value in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 26.10.1995. Petitioner claims that he is entitled for regularization. Sri V.Venkataramana, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3797 of 2001 dated 8.3.2001 in support of his contention that the direction as sought for ought to be issued.

¶24

In the aforesaid judgment, petitioners therein were declared as land grabbers. They had earlier filed W.P.No.25702 of 1999 apprehending demolition of their poultry farm, cattle sheds etc., and this Court after hearing both parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed the respondents to decide whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 and that the exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks. Thereafter the petitioners therein filed an application seeking regularization. The M.R.O. found that the land fell outside the municipal area and within the limits of the gram panchayat and concluded

¶25

that the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 were not applicable. The contention advanced before the Learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.3797 of 2001, was that the M.R.O. was not competent to decide the application. The Learned Judge held that it was the Committee constituted under the said G.O. which was required to scrutiny all cases of regularization and decide whether encroachment should be regularized or not. This Court observed that it was the Committee which had to take an appropriate decision and not the M.R.O. Accordingly, the proceedings of the M.R.O. was set aside on the ground that it suffered from an incurable jurisdictional error and the matter was directed to be placed before the Committee which was directed to consider and take an appropriate decision.

¶26

Unlike in the aforesaid case, in the present case no decision has been taken on the petitioner’s request for regularization of his encroachment. The petitioner, in effect, claims regularization of an encroachment of approximately 500 Sq. Yards of Government land in Balanagar at the market value prevailing in 1995 when the G.O. was issued. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the value of properties in and around the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad have increased by leaps and bounds. The value of the land encroached, which the petitioner claims regularization, would be in excess of Rs.1.00 Crore as on today. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. In view of the fact that the land encroached upon is highly valuable, I see no reason to accede to the petitioner’s request and issue a direction as sought for which, in effect, is to regularize his encroachment

¶27

on payment of market value prevailing in 1995. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶28

asp

P. Krishna Priya, v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P. Krishna Priya, v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.T.Shyamalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Kuppamma Vs Jt.Collector Chittoor and Another

K.Ramu Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

M/s Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd., Vs The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh

Lanka Mohan, Vs The State of A.P.

M.K.Umamaheswaran, Vs M/s.Union Bank of India