Disposed

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi v. Tahsildar

Telangana HC11 Feb 2009WP/2507/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These writ petitions challenged the District Collector's inaction in finalizing land enquiry proceedings initiated in October 2008. The court held that given the complexity involving record verification over decades and allegations of tampering, respondents cannot be expected to conclude proceedings within days.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer to expedite the enquiry initiated by them.

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi Vs Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶4

Writ Petition Nos. 2474, 2506, 2507 and 2508 of 2009

¶5

W.P. No. 2474 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Lingam Somasundara Rao /o. Venkata Padmaraju R/o. Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam

¶11

2 Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam

¶12

3 District Collector, Visakhapatnam

¶13

....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other writ declaring that the inaction of the 3rd respondent in finalizing the enquiry proceedings initiated vide Proceedings No. Rc No. 5065/2007 F2 dt. 27-10-2008 in so far as the petitioner's lands in an extent of Ac 3.60 cts in S.No. 368/3 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam is unreasonable, unjustified arbitrary illegal, and violation of the property rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to finalize the enquiry in so far as they relate to the subject lands and pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RAJAN

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶19

Writ Petition Nos. 2474, 2506, 2507 and 2508 of 2009

¶20

Common Order:

¶21

These writ petitions are filed with a prayer to declare the inaction on the part of the third respondent-District Collector in finalizing the enquiry initiated vide notice dated 27.10.2008, in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶22

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

¶23

Even from a narration of facts in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions or by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it becomes clear that there is long standing dispute as to the classification and categorization of lands. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, passed a detailed order on 13.02.2008, and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, questioning the said order, are pending. In the meanwhile, the District Collector, the third respondent herein called for a report from the Joint Collector and on the basis of the findings recorded therein he initiated enquiry. A notice of hearing was issued as recently as on 27.10.2008 fixing the date of hearing on 11.11.2008. The Revenue Divisional Officer also issued a notice on 30.11.2008 fixing the date of hearing on 15.12.2008. In a matter of this nature wherein verification of records for the past several decades is involved and allegations as to the tampering of records exists, the respondents cannot be expected to conclude the proceedings within days.

¶24

However, having regard to the fact that any adjudication by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer would have its own impact on the pending proceedings, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer to

¶25

expedite the enquiry initiated by them. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Date: 11.02.2009 Nsr

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi v. Tahsildar

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

Fareed Hussain Khan, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Jakata Danamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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