Disposed

Kuppam Balasubrahmanyam v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC13 Feb 2009WP/1185/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the en bloc cancellation of assignments without prior notice, the High Court directed the Tahsildar to appear for explanation, granted a stay on the order affecting the petitioner, and directed a list of past cancellations for landless persons.

What did the court decide?

Stay of operation of the impugned order regarding the petitioner; direction to the respondent Tahsildar to appear before the court; direction to furnish a list of past cancellation orders.

Kuppam Balasubrahmanyam Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 1185 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kuppam Balasubrahmanyam, S/o.Sri Subba Rayudu.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1.Govt. of A.P., rep.by it’s Secretary,

¶12

Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2.The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet Kadapa District

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.B/50/2007 dated 17.3.2008 issued by respondent No.4 herein as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as also the D-Form Patta and issue a consequential direction setting aside the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.50 cents in SY.No.1 of Nagisettipalle Revenue Village, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶17

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Govt. Pleader for Revenue for the Respondents, the Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

“The Tahsildar, B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District, by name, Sri K.V. Sivaramaiah, appears to be in the habit of visiting the villages and canceling the assignments en bloc. On such order, dated 17.03.2008, is challenged in this writ petition. Assignments of as many as 63 persons were cancelled without even giving notices. He is directed to appear before the Court on 06.02.2009.

¶20

-2-

¶21

In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner. He is also directed to furnish the list of the orders of cancellation of assignments in favour of landless poor and ex-servicemen done in his Mandal in the past one year or during his tenure, whichever is earlier.”

¶22

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶23

// TRUE COPY //

¶24

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶25

¶26

1.Sri K.V. Sivaramaiah, Tahsildar, B. Mattam Mandal,

¶27

Kadapa District.(BY SPEED POST) 2.The Secretary, Govt. of A.P.,Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3.The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet Kadapa District 5.The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶28

6.Two CCs to the Govt. Pleader for Revenue, High Court Bldgs.,

¶29

Hyderabad.(OUT) 7.One CC to Sri J. Prabhakar, Advocate. (OPUC)

¶30

8.One spare copy.

¶31

H.A.

¶32

DRAFTED BY : H.A. DATED : 30.01.09 APPROVED BY :

HIGH COURT

LNRJ

DATED : 29.01.09

ORDER :

WP NO.1185/09

DIRECTION

Kuppam Balasubrahmanyam v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuppam Balasubrahmanyam v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

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

B. Prabhakar Sharma, Vs District Collector

V. Rama Chandra Rao Vs The Joint Collector - II

G.Jaya Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Chetikattu Ankamma Vs The Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal

K.Ravinder Reddy Vs The Joint Collector-Ii

Pipula Krishna Vs The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar