Remanded

Smt. Shanthamma v. Chairman, Implementation Secretariat

Telangana HC12 Nov 2008WP/8240/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the auction of agricultural land. It directed the District Collector to forward the record to the Joint Collector as the revisional authority for enquiry into the factual dispute over ownership and assignment pattas, mandating a decision within three months while maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to place the record before the Joint Collector for enquiry and decision within three months; status quo maintained.

Smt. Shanthamma Vs Chairman, Implementation Secretariat — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 8240 of 2001

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Smt. Shanthamma W/o. Muthaiah, R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶8

2 Smt. Yelshamma W/o. Chinna Bheemaiah,

¶9

R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

3 Smt. Maria W/o. Ravi,

¶11

R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶12

4 Smt. Yemunolla Padma W/o. Kanthaiah R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶13

5 Smt. Bullendula Kanthamma, W/o. Late Peda Bheemaiah, R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. 6 Smt. Yemula Salemma, W/o. Anand R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. 7 Smt. Yemula Vasantha, W/o. Mogulaiah R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. 8 Smt. Santoshamma W/o. Hanmanthu, R/o. Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶14

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

1 Chairman, Implementation Secretariat, Public Enterprises Department in General Administrations Dept. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 General Manager, The Nizam Sugars Ltd., P.O. Shakkarnagar, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3 District Collector, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S)

¶17

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, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Tender-cum-Auction Notice No.IS/004/FC/2001 dt. 6.4.2001 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily dt.6.4.2001 issued by the 1st respondent herein, to the extent it affects 1 acre of land in S.No.1032/1, 1 acre of land in S.No.1033/3, 1 acre of land in S.No.1033/5, 1 acre of land in S.No.1032/7, 1 acre of land in S.No.1033/6, 1 acre of land in S.No.1032/3, 1 acre of land in S.No.1032/2 and 1 acre of land in S.No.1033/4 belonging to the petitioners herein situate at Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District, as without jurisdiction, without authority of law, illegal, highly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to give effect to the same and further direct the respondents herein to delete the abovesaid land of the petitioners from the sale/auction and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GAD

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following :

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8240 of 2001

¶21

ORAL ORDER :

¶22

This writ petition is filed by eight agricultural labourers of Ootpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District, questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking to auction the lands in Survey Nos.1032/1, 1033/3, 1033/5, 1032/7, 1033/6, 1032/3, 1032/2 and 1032/4 which the petitioners claim to have been assigned in their favour.

¶23

2. While Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioners would assert that all of them have been issued assignment pattas, and that a copy of one such assignment patta has been filed along with this writ petition, Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would, however, contend that the said land was allotted to Nizam Sugar Factory and, since the second respondent is now the owner of the property, the said land could not have been assigned in the petitioners’ favour. According to the learned counsel, the revisional authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act and the Rules made thereunder is the Joint Collector, Nizamabad District.

¶25

3. While the District Collector, Nizamabad District, is arrayed as the third respondent, both counsel would agree that, since it is the Joint Collector, Nizamabad District who is the revisional authority, ends of justice would be met if he is directed to enquire into the factual dispute of ownership and decide the matter, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law.

¶26

4. The District Collector, Nizamabad District, the third respondent herein, shall place the entire record before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, who shall, after hearing both the petitioners and the second respondent, decide the petitioners’ claim to have been granted assignment pattas and the second respondent’s claim of ownership, in accordance with law within a period of

¶27

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

5. Since an interim order was passed by this Court on 24-04-2001, staying the auction pending disposal of the writ petition, it is but appropriate that status quo as on today be maintained till final orders are passed by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad District.

¶29

6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 12-11-2008. Msr

¶31

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.8240 of 2001

¶33

12-11-2008

¶34

Msr

Smt. Shanthamma v. Chairman, Implementation Secretariat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanthamma v. Chairman, Implementation Secretariat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Water Tank Users Association Vakadu Vs Collector Nellore Dist.and 3

Sri P.D.Rathna Raju Vs The Spl. Tahasildar

Boya Anjinayya, Vs The Mandal revenue Officer

B.Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs The District Collector

K.v.R.Narsinga Rao. Vs Depot Manager

Capt. M.K. Rayudu Vs Dredging Corporation of India