This is a closed writ petition where the High Court, finding that the respondents denied interfering with petitioners' possession of their private land, held that no further orders were necessary.
The writ petition was closed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
W.P.No.10348 of 2003
Dated: 10-03-2011
Between: Smt. G.Bhagya Laxmi and others …Petitioners AND The District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad and others
Respondents
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
W.P.No.10348 of 2003
ORDER:
Petitioners, who claim to have purchased various extents of land forming part of Sy.No.160 under registered sale deeds, situated at Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District filed this writ petition stating that Sy.No.710 is adjacent to Sy.No.160, that Sy.No.710 is undisputedly a Government land, that the entire land was made into plots by forming a lay out by the revenue authorities and the same was distributed to 2406 beneficiaries in the year 1991 itself, and that all the beneficiaries have been in possession of their respective plots allotted to them in Sy.No.710. The said beneficiaries themselves formed into an association called ‘Sai Baba Nagar Welfare Association’ and that the said association filed a writ petition being W.P.No.3362 of 1997 stating that the government is trying to encroach upon the land allotted to them and trying to allot the said land in favour of third parties. However, the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 12.3.1997 categorically stated that the entire Sy.No.710/1 was made into plots and was handed over to 2406 beneficiaries and certificates and possession to that effect was also handed over to the beneficiaries in 1991 itself and that there is no encroachment by the adjoining pattadars. Even after passing the said order by the first respondent, the respondents have moved the other side of the survey No.710/1 and are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from their respective plots which form part of Sy.No.160 and therefore, they filed the present writ petition to direct the respondents not to dispossess them from their respective plots.
Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal-third respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that the land bearing
Sy.No.710/1 admeasuring Ac.89.27 gts. is classified as Sarkari Poramboke of Kapra Village out of which, for the land to an extent of Ac.86.39 gts. a lay out was made and got approved from Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for 2406 plots and the same was distributed leaving a balance of Ac.3.28 gts. of land and that the said land is in Government possession. It is denied that the land in Sy.No.710/1 belong to the writ petitioners. Neither the writ petitioners nor their vendors came into possession of Government land and as such the dispossession of writ petitioners does not arise. The writ petitioners have already constructed houses in their respective plots in Sy.No.160 which is private patta land. The land in Sy.No.710/1 is Government land and the land is already demarcated and it is fenced. The respondents never interfered with the possession of petitioners over their plots in Sy.No.160 and therefore, there is no cause for filing the present writ petition.
In view of the categorical assertion made by the respondents in the counter affidavit that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners over their respective plots in Sy.No.160, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly closed. No order as to costs.
________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
MARCH 10, 2011 Tsr.
Smt. G. Bhagya Laxmi and others
The District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad
Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
