Disposed

Fareed Hussain Khan, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Feb 2009WP/2034/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged non-action by the District Collector on applications for regularization of alleged encroachments under G.O.Ms.No. 166. The Court directed the respondent to dispose of the applications within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the petitioners' applications regarding regularization of encroachments within two months from receipt of this order.

Fareed Hussain Khan, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2034 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Fareed Hussain Khan, S/o. Sikander Hussain Khan,

¶8

R/o. # 11, Buckingham Block, Amrutha Valley, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034.

¶9

2 Sikander Hussain Khan, S/o. Mumtaz Hussain Khan,

¶10

R/o. # 11, Buckingham Block, Amrutha Valley, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034.

¶11

3 Obaid Hussain Khan, S/o. Sikander Hussain Khan,

¶12

R/o. # 11, Buckingham Block, Amrutha Valley, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034.

¶13

4 Mahmood Hussain Khan, S/o. Sikander Hussain Khan,

¶14

R/o. # 11, Buckingham Block, Amrutha Valley, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034.

¶15

..... PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶19

3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

....RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 issue an order, direction or appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus direct the respondents to consider the applications filed for transfer of rights in respect of plots 8 and 9 of erstwhile Jubille Hills Municipality in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 166, dt. 16-2-2008 and consequentially direct the respondents to transfer the rights in favour of the petitioner as per the guidelines of said G.O. in the interest of justice and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MAHMOOD ALI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following :

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶26

Writ Petition No. 2034 of 2009

¶27

Order:

¶28

The petitioners filed an application dated 01.10.2008 before the District Collector, the first respondent herein to regularize their alleged encroachments over plot Nos.8 and 9 of erstwhile Jubilee Hills Municipality in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. Their grievance is that no action has been taken on the application so far.

¶29

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that the benefit under G.O. Ms. No. 166 can be extended only in favour of such persons who are in actual possession of the Government land.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶31

The Government itself evolved a scheme for regularization of encroachments of Government lands and issued guidelines therefor under G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. In case the petitioners have fulfilled the requirements of G.O. Ms. No. 166, the benefit needs to be extended to them. On the other hand, it is found that the petitioners are not eligible for it, the reasons therefor are to be communicated. The applications cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

¶32

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioners in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.902.2008, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶34

Date: 11.02.2009 Nsr

Fareed Hussain Khan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fareed Hussain Khan, v. The District Collector

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

Smt.Guda Malathi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Bhagyanagar Investment and Trading PVt., Ltd., Plot No. 18, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar mandal

M.A. Sami Khan, Vs The District Collector

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Jakata Danamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Panduga China Chennaiah S/o rangaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer