Disposed

Smt.D.Laxminarasamma, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC23 Dec 2010WP/3475/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging arbitrary interference with petitioner's land via acquisition notice. Court directed respondents not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, disposing the petition without final adjudication on title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law.

Smt.D.Laxminarasamma, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶3

W.P.No.3475 of 2005

¶4

Date: 23^rd December, 2010

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt.D.Laxminarasamma

¶7

. Petitioner

¶8

And The District Collector, Khammam and others.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶11

W.P.No.3475 of 2005

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the land held by the petitioner in Sy.No.93/E/1, 93/E/2 and 92 etc., situated at Thallada village and mandal, Khammam district, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the

¶14

petitioner’s land.

¶15

According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner and possessor of patta land in Sy.No.93/E/1, 93/E/2 and 92 etc., situated at Thallada village and mandal, Khammam district. While that being so, the first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the land in Sy.Nos.92 to 97 of Thallada village. According to the petitioner, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry, the respondents are threatening to dispossess her from the subject land. Hence this writ petition.

¶16

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents stating that the land in Sy.Nos.93/4, 95/4, 96/3, 96/5 and 97/3 belongs to the mother of petitioner viz. Smt.Koteru Sayamma and the said land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award bearing No.6/99 dated 6.4.1999 and an amount of Rs.1,71,594/towards compensation was already paid to petitioner’s mother and the petitioner has not objected for the same and moreover she has also signed the agreement at the time of payment of compensation to her mother Smt.Koteru Sayamma.

¶17

The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the subject land is altogether a different land and it has nothing to do with the land held by petitioner’s mother. The land held by petitioner is a patta land and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject land, as of today, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the same and the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject land without following due process of law.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

______________ C.V.RAMULU, J

¶21

Date: 23.12.2010 DA

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶23

W.P.No.3475 of 2005

¶24

23.12.2010

Smt.D.Laxminarasamma, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.D.Laxminarasamma, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Padmaiatha Vs District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

P. Malyadri Vs Sri D. Samba Siva Rao

Y. Pushpavathamma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

G. Jagannatha Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Abhinav Constructions represented by its Vs A.P. Educational and Welfare Infrastructure Development

Naren Harikrishna Rao Vs State of a.P.through Secretary