Disposed

Ramakurthy Udayabaskara Rao v. The Tahsildar,Kakinada Rural mandal, Kakinada

Telangana HC9 Dec 2010WP/22599/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondents' attempt to evict him from government land without notice. The respondent authority clarified that eviction would follow due legal processes since the petitioner was in possession. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition as no illegality was tenable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and concomitant WPMP were disposed of as the respondent authority agreed to follow due process for eviction.

Ramakurthy Udayabaskara Rao Vs The Tahsildar,Kakinada… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.22599 of 2010

¶2

Date : 9-12-2010

¶3

Between : Ramakurthy Udayabhaskara Rao .. Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others .. Respondents

¶4

Counsel for petitioner : None

¶5

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Counsel for respondent No.3 :

¶6

The Court made the following :

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents in seeking to forcibly dispossess him from the land admeasuring 288 sq.yards, in S.No.61, Anjaneynagar, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, without notice as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶10

The petitioner claims to have purchased the above mentioned land on 14-5-1975. When some persons tried to dig a 2 feet width drain through his land, he has filed O.S.No.72/1999 in the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for mandatory injunction. The said suit, on contest, was dismissed. A.S.No.25/2009 filed against the said Judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner is stated to be coming up for admission. The petitioner alleged that at the instance of defendants in the suit, the official respondents have been attempting to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the land without following the due process of law and that as a part of these attempts, electricity was disconnected on 2-9-2010 and on 4-9-2010 some persons claiming to be the officials of the respondents came to the property and demanded the petitioner to vacate the same.

¶11

No counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on

¶12

instructions, submitted that the property belongs to the Government and the same is needed for laying of a drain. She stated that respondent No.3 has passed a resolution sanctioning the said work. She has however stated that as the petitioner is in possession of the property, the respondents will follow the due process of law for his eviction.

¶13

As it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that such process needs to be followed by the respondents if they seek to evict him, in the light of the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, noted above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.28816/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J

¶16

Date : 9-12-2010 AM

Ramakurthy Udayabaskara Rao v. The Tahsildar,Kakinada Rural mandal, Kakinada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakurthy Udayabaskara Rao v. The Tahsildar,Kakinada Rural mandal, Kakinada

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

B.Ramulamma Vs The District Collector

Satti Subba Reddy Vs The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

G.Ramamurthy Vs The Tahsildar

Nadella Nagaratnam Vs REvenue Divisional Officer

Sudulagunta Seetharamaiah Vs The Director Land Survey and Records

K.S.Parvathamma Vs TheDistrict Collector