Dismissed

Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC2 Jul 2009WP/13056/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an appellate proceeding regarding alleged encroachment on government land, seeking a direction for the appellate authority to verify if the land qualifies as 'assigned land' under Section 2(1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, by examining patta terms.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to verify patta terms and conditions to determine if the land is assigned land before disposing of the appeal on merits.

Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy Vs Mandal Revenue Officer — Property and Title | 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 : 13056 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy S/o. Vajrala Koti Reddy R/o. Ankireddypalem, 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 procedings further in appeal No. 246 / 2009 pending before the 2nd respondents without looking into the office records in respect to the pattas granted as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential directin 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 petitioenr in the year 1974 of Sy.Nos. 704/1 and 677/1 admeasuring Acs. 5.46 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 W.P.NO.13056 OF 2009

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

Against an order of the 1^st respondent dated 25-02-2006 determining the petitioner to be 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 his 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, 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 appeal only after considering whether the land assigned to the petitioner

¶22

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 the terms prohibit alienation of the assigned land.

¶23

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

¶24

_________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 2^nd *JULY 2009 TSNR

Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajrala Veera Raghava Reddy 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

Chataparthi Venkateswara Rao Vs The District Collector

Smt. Zahurunnissa Begum, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion

Shaik Iqbal Vs The Grearter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

B.Sita Rama Murthy Vs The Government of Ap

M/s. Spin Cot Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Cotton Corporation of India Limited

V. Amarnath Reddy Vs The Secretary