Dismissed

Velisetty Narasimha Rao, v. Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Reforms Tribunal

Telangana HC19 Aug 2010CRP/5244/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four civil revision petitions challenging non-communication of an order regarding land possession objections were disposed of as unnecessary once the order was acknowledged. Status quo was extended for 15 days to allow petitioners to challenge the order.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions disposed of as unnecessary; Status quo extended for 15 days pending communication of RDO order; RDO directed to communicate order to petitioners.

Velisetty Narasimha Rao, Vs Revenue Divisional… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.5244, 5353, 5356 and 5523 of 2007

¶4

C.R.P. No.5244 of 2007:

¶5

Between:

¶6

Velisetty Narasimha Rao .. Petitioner/Objector

¶7

AND

¶8

Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District and another .. Respondents

¶9

C.R.P. No.5353 of 2007:

¶10

Between:

¶11

Dandamudi Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner/Objector

¶12

AND

¶13

Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District and another .. Respondents

¶14

C.R.P. No.5356 of 2007:

¶15

Between:

¶16

Chilukuri Nageswara Rao .. Petitioner/Objector

¶17

AND

¶18

Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District and another .. Respondents C.R.P. No.5523 of 2007:

¶19

Between:

¶20

D. Jogendrabhushan Kumar .. Petitioner/Objector AND

¶21

Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Reforms Tribunal, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District and another .. Respondents

¶22

COMMON ORDER:

¶23

These four civil revision petitions at the instance of the respective objectors against the orders passed in C.C.No. 1312/GDV/75 are mainly filed claiming about not passing any orders on the objections filed by the respective revision petitioners on

¶24

21-09-2007 notwithstanding the orders of this Court in the earlier C.R.P. No.3858 of 1982. The revision petitioners contend that without any such decision on the objections and without notice to the possessors of the land, an attempt is being made to take possession of the lands and the notice issued under Section 7(4) in Form-VIII to a dead person is also contrary to law. They further contend that the standing crops raised by them were on land and

¶25

any dispossession will put them to grave and irreparable loss.

¶26

Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents are heard.

¶27

Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to notice that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada had, in fact, passed orders on 01-112007 in Rc.B.CC. No.1312/GDV.75 deciding the objections raised by the objectors and rejecting them. The copy of the said order also shows that the Tahsildar, Gudivada was directed to take possession of the lands in question and report compliance. In the light of the said orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, nothing further survives to be adjudicated in these revisions, which are only about not deciding their objections, serving no notices on the possessors and issuing notice to a dead person.

¶28

However, it is admitted that the said order, dated 01-112007 was not communicated to the civil revision petitioners herein and it is seen from the copy of the order also that it was marked only to Tahsildar and Collector and not others. Therefore, it would be suffice to direct the respondents to communicate the said order to the civil revision petitioners herein immediately.

¶29

While the civil revision petitions have to be disposed of accordingly, the orders of status quo obtaining as on the dates of filing of the civil revision petitions are in force in all these four civil revision petitions and in the interests of justice, the revision petitioners have to be given an opportunity to take recourse to any remedies available to them under law against the said order, dated 01-11-2007. If a reasonable time is granted for the said purpose, continuing to maintain the status quo in the meanwhile, the same

¶30

will subserve the interests of justice.

¶31

Therefore, the civil revision petitions are disposed of as unnecessary after the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 01-11-2007 passed on the objections taken by the revision petitioners and the parties shall bear their own costs. The interim orders of status quo already granted earlier in the four civil revision petitions respectively shall continue to be in force for a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 01-11-2007 to the respective revision petitioners in order to enable the revision petitioners to pursue any remedies available to them under law against such orders.

¶32

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-08-2010

¶33

Svv

Velisetty Narasimha Rao, v. Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Reforms Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velisetty Narasimha Rao, v. Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Reforms Tribunal

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs K.Narasimlu

Dt.Mngr a.P.Urban Dev.Andhousing Cor. Kaki Vs P.Linga Babu Govarapeta E.G.DTAND4 Ors.

The District Manager Vs Mr. Alla Suryanarayana

Smt. Priti Anand Vs Mr. Sagar Dhara

Jakkampudi Subba Rao, Vs Sri Dommeti Venkanna (Died)

Dandamudi Vijayalakshmi, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Reforms Tribunal