Disposed

N.Padmaiatha v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Telangana HC22 Dec 2010WP/2674/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the demolition of a compound wall on petitioners' land. The single-judge bench held that authorities cannot demolish structures or interfere with possession without following due process of law and providing notice, directing respondents to refrain from such interference.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment without following due process of law and notice.

N.Padmaiatha Vs District Collector, Ranga Reddy District — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P. No. 2674 of 2005

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus directing respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in Plot Nos. 99, 100 and 101 in Sy.Nos. 442, 444, 445, 448 and 449 of Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, without following due process of law and without putting the petitioners on notice about the proposed action.

¶5

According to petitioners, they have purchased small extents of land in Plot Nos. 99, 100 and 101 in Sy.Nos. 442, 444, 445, 448 and 449 of Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District under registered sale deeds dated 7.8.1990, 7.8.1990 and 4.12.2002 respectively and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 11.2.2005 they made representation before 1^st respondent for conducting survey by the Assistant Director of Survey. However, instead of conducting survey and recognizing their possession and title, 3^rd respondent – M.R.O. came to their land on 5.2.2008 along with staff and demolished the constructed compound wall without any intimation and the application made by them was also not disposed of. Hence this writ petition.

¶6

While admitting the writ petition, on 16.2.2005 this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the abovementioned subject land, without following due process of law.

¶7

Though no counter is filed, learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the petitioners have occupied certain Government land in Sy.No. 440, therefore, demolition of compound wall was contemplated.

¶8

Be that as it may, even if the petitioners have

¶9

encroached into Government land in Sy.No.440 and constructed compound wall, respondents are not supposed to demolish the same without following due process of law and interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land.

¶10

Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of Plot Nos. 99, 100 and 101 in Sy.Nos. 442, 444, 445, 448 and 449 of Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, without following due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶11

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

¶12

Date: 22-12-2010.

¶13

MVB.

N.Padmaiatha v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Padmaiatha v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

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

Vallamkonda Satyanarayana, Vs The District Collector

D.Suryanarayana Murthy Vs Sri Dr Garg

J. Foundation, Formerly known as Jagruthi Educational and Vs Mr. A.K. Tigidi IAS

P. Malyadri Vs Sri D. Samba Siva Rao

Y. Pushpavathamma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

N.S.R.K. Junior College, Vs The Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education