Partly allowed

Smt.Vajrala Veerabalavanthamma v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC2 Jul 2009WP/13046/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an appellate authority's decision on encroachment, the Court issued a mandamus directing the authority to verify if the land is 'assigned land' under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act by examining patta terms before deciding the appeal merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider whether the assigned land prohibits alienation before disposing of the appeal on merits.

Smt.Vajrala Veerabalavanthamma Vs Mandal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13046 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt.Vajrala Veerabalavanthamma W/o.Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy R/o.Ankireddypalem Village, Guntur District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur.

¶10

2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

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, direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in proceeding further in appeal No.245 of 2009 pending before the 2nd respondent without looking into the office records in respect to the pattas granted as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal only after looking into the pattas granted by the government to the father of the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1974 of Sy.Nos. 704/1 and 677/1, admeasuring Acs.3.90 in Ankireddypalem Village, Guntur District and pass.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SURESH

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶17

W.P.NO.13046 OF 2009

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue(Assignment).

¶20

Against an order of the 1^st respondent dated 25-02-2006 determining the petitioner as an encroacher since a transferee of assigned Government land contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977 (for short “the Act”) and directing her eviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25-042009 to the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner apprehending that the 2^nd respondent without looking into the terms and conditions of the patta may determine whether the property in question and in lis in the appeal before the 2^nd respondent is “ assigned land” within the meaning of the expression as defined in Sec.2(1) of the Act by reference to the terms and conditions of the patta granted to the petitioner, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to verify from the terms and conditions of the patta granted whether the land is assigned land within the meaning of the expression as defined in Sec.2(1) of the Act.

¶21

An identical plea was urged in W.P.No.5437 of 2009. A learned single judge of this Court by the judgment dated.18.03.2009 disposed of the said writ petition directing the appellate authority-2^nd respondent therein, to decide the appeal only after obtaining definite and authentic information about the nature of the pattas that were granted to the assignees and the conditions therefor.

¶22

Having regard to an identical circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission in the same terms. The 2^nd respondent-appellate authority shall, if the appeal is otherwise in order and warrants disposal on merits of the appeal, proceed to dispose of the

¶23

appeal only after considering whether the land assigned to the petitioner constitutes assigned land within the meaning of the said expression as defined in Sec.2(1) of the Act, by reference to the terms and conditions of the assignment, namely whether there is a condition prohibiting alienation.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶25

_________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶26

2^nd *JULY 2009 TSNR

Smt.Vajrala Veerabalavanthamma v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vajrala Veerabalavanthamma v. Mandal Revenue 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

Asadi Pedda Kullayappa Vs The Commissioner of Land Revenue

Marri Venkateswarlu, Vs Chinna Kakani Grama Panchayat

Syed Sujath Ali Vs Transport Commissioner, Transport Building,Khairatabad

Bodapati Markonda Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Vanaraju Sharma Vs The Principal Secretary Revenue Department

L.N.Printers Vs The State of A.P.