Dismissed

Bolla Rambabu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC19 Jun 2009WP/10609/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petition challenging delayed eviction of scheduled caste petitioners holding statutory lands. Court directed respondants to consider subsequent representation under G.O.Ms.No.951 within three months if filed.

What did the court decide?

Ordered respondents to consider representation regarding G.O.Ms.No.951 if filed within four weeks and pass orders within three months. No direct eviction stay granted.

Bolla Rambabu Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 10609 of 1999

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Bolla Rambabu S/o.Muthyam Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶7

2 Bolla venkataswarlu S/o Muthyam

¶8

Bhadrachalam Khammam District

¶9

3 Bolla mallikarjun Rao S/o Muthyam Bhadrachalam Khammam District

¶10

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶13

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶14

3 The Commissioner Of land revenue now redsignated as Commissioner

¶15

O/o.Chief Commissioner Of Land Administration Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶16

.....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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declasring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in No.BCW/4/277/96, dt.23-4-1999 which was communicated on 22-51999 dismissing the revision filed by the petetioners and also not issueing direction to the first respondent R.D.O., for communication of the orders of the first respondent R.D.O., Bhadrachalam passed in Rc.C/56?78, dated 10-8-1979 inspite of filling copy ap0plication dt.173-1998 and interefering with the posession and enjoyment of the lands of the petetioners situated inSy.No.20, Bhadrachalam, to an extent of 6.65cents bounded by North APSRTC Busstand, South Gram Panchayath Road,Bhadrachalam, East-Vacant land of A.P.S.R.T.C, and West vacant land of the APSRTC as highly illegal and violative of Article14,16 and 21 of the constitution and consequently to direct the respondents communicate the orders passed by the first respondent, R.D.O Bhadrachalam, in Rc,.C/%6?78, dt.10-8-1979 to enable the

¶18

petetioners to pursue their legal remedies under A.P. Land Enroachment Act, and to pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following :

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, on 08.08.1978, the first petitioner, who since died, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer who, by order dated 10.08.1979, confirmed the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The first petitioner died in the year 1983. It is the specific case of petitioners 2 to 5 that no action had been taken to evict them for more than 15 years and it is only in 1998 that steps were initiated to evict them on the ground that the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer had been confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Contending that the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 10.08.1979 had not been communicated to the first petitioner, petitioners 2 to 5 preferred a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on 17.03.1998. The Commissioner, in his order dated 23.04.1999, observed that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer had been communicated to the father of petitioners 2 to 5 and, accordingly, rejected the revision. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition.

¶24

To verify the petitioners contention, that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer had not been communicated, this Court directed the respondents to produce the records. On perusal of the records Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners, would fairly state that the records disclose that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was served on the father of petitioners 2 to 5 and that he had affixed his signature in token of receipt of the said order. Learned counsel would fairly submit that the said signature of the father of the petitioners 2 to 5 does tally with the other records and, since this was the only contention urged before the Commissioner, the impugned order of the Commissioner does not necessitate interference.

¶25

Learned counsel would, however, submit that, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.951 dated 04.12.1974, landless poor non-tribals in scheduled areas, who were in possession of 2½ acres of wet or 5 acres of dry lands for a period not less than 10 years should not be evicted and that persons belonging to the scheduled castes were also eligible for this benefit and that the condition of 10 years prescribed therein need not be adhered to. Learned counsel would submit that the benefit conferred by the G.O. is applicable to members of the scheduled castes, that all the petitioners belong to the scheduled castes and continue to remain in possession of the lands in question and that the third respondent should consider the petitioners’ request in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.951 dated 04.12.1974.

¶26

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would dispute the contention of the petitioners and submit that, since possession has already been handed over to the APSRTC, the petitioners are no longer in possession of the land in question.

¶27

Suffice to hold that if the petitioners are entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.951 dated 14.12.1974 dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude them from filing a representation to the Government in this regard and, if a representation, is so submitted within a period of four week from today, the Government shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶28

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶29

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶30

16^th March 2009 CVRK

Bolla Rambabu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolla Rambabu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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.C.Nanji Reddy, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K.Srinivas Rao, Vs Govt. of A.P.

The Sub.Divisional Officer, Vs Sri K.Krishan

The Officer-in-Charge, Vs a.Tulasi Das

Raheem Khan Vs Issa Khan

S. Rama Reddy Vs Smt. Anausya Bai ( died ) per Lrs