The Supreme Court closed a Writ Petition challenging survey and dispossession actions by respondents deemed illegal. The writ was dismissed as the Land Reforms Tribunal subsequently held the land was not surplus, redressing the grievance.
Writ petition closed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1839 of 2008
ORDER:
The petitioners approached this Court for a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents and their staff in attempting to survey, and dispossess the petitioners from the lands in various survey numbers of Abudhayanagar Colony, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary.
The attempted steps by the respondents were on the ground that the land in question was treated as surplus land under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Land Reforms Tribunal, East Division, Ranga Reddy District passed an order dated 21.06.2008 holding that the land in the said survey number is not surplus. With this, the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed.
The writ petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________ 12.02.2009
JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.1839 of 2008
Date: 12.02.2009
JSU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the declaration of action to survey and dispossess petitioners from lands as illegal and arbitrary is sustainable in light of Tribunal's finding.
Whether a writ petition becomes unnecessary when the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed during its pendency.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents and their staff
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
