Dismissed

M.N. Srinivas Naik, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC2 Feb 2009WP/22623/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his land patta via a writ petition, alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of notice. The Court dismissed the writ, holding that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy through appeal to the appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is directed to file an appeal with the 2nd respondent within four weeks.

M.N. Srinivas Naik, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22623 of 2008

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land in Survey No.373/1 of Inagaluru Village, Sri Kalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District, in Form ‘D’. He feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with his possession. The petitioner states that he was not issued any notice, alleging any irregularities, much less any order of resumption was passed.

¶4

On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that a show-cause notice, dated 05-102007, was issued to the petitioner through the Village Administrative Officer, alleging that the petitioner is not residing in the village and the same was not brought under cultivation. It is also stated that since the petitioner did not respond to the said notice, an order, dated 14-102007, was passed canceling the patta granted to him. According to the respondents, the land has since been assigned to other eligible persons.

¶5

Sri Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged order of cancellation is violative of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner

¶6

was not issued any notice at all. He contends that the petitioner is very much a resident of the village and the allegation of the respondents as to service of notice or passing of order of cancellation, is untenable. The learned counsel further submits that even according to the endorsement made by the 3^rd respondent, the land has not been assigned to any one.

¶7

The learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on the other hand, submits that the procedure prescribed by law was followed before the assignment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. He further contends that the land has since been assigned to the eligible landless poor.

¶8

The petitioner was granted DKT patta over the land referred to above. Though the petitioner complains that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession, it ultimately emerges that the order dated 14-10-2007 was passed canceling his patta and this was preceded by the notice, dated 05-10-2007. The petitioner strongly refutes the assertion of the respondents that a notice was served through substituted process.

¶9

This Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of

¶10

the matter. The reason is that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal. The appellate authority can call for record and satisfy itself as to whether the prescribed procedure was followed, and also examine the matter on merits.

¶11

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent by filing an appeal and he, in turn, shall entertain the same, if it is presented within four weeks from today. The 2^nd respondent shall call for the record and consider all the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is made clear that in case, it emerges that the cancellation of the patta in favour of the petitioner is found to be illegal, the mere fact that any third party rights have been created, does not come in the way of restoring the land in favour of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent shall conclude the proceedings before him within two months from the date of presentation of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

__________

¶13

02.02.2009

¶14

Note: Issue C.C. in four days. (B/o) CBS/JSU

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.22623 of 2008

¶17

Date: 02.02.2009

M.N. Srinivas Naik, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N. Srinivas Naik, 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

Kanupurupalli Gram Panchayat Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kanjarla Balaiah, Vs The Dist Collector

K.S. Prasad Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Smt. M.Geetha Vs The joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District.

The Agnikula Kshatriya Sand Quarry Boatsman Vs The District Collector