Allowed

Smt. Vadla Manemma v. The District Collector

Telangana HC14 Mar 2011WP/1042/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the cancellation of a house site patta. The court held the order illegal and arbitrary because the reasons for cancellation did not align with the allegations in the Show Cause Notice, violating natural justice. The order was quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.10.2010 set aside; matter remanded to respondent to pass orders afresh; petitioner directed to appear.

Smt. Vadla Manemma Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1042 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the impugned order of respondent No.2 dated 15.10.2010 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioner states that she was allotted 100 sq. yards under “Indiramma Pathakam”. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner applied for sanction of house plan and that respondent No.4 had accorded permission for construction of a house by proceedings dated 15.09.2008. Pursuant to the representation of the Chitkul Villagers dated 06.06.2009 alleging that allotment of house sites was made to ineligible persons, the first respondent ordered for enquiry. Based on the enquiry report, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy (respondent No.2) had issued a show cause notice dated 16.09.2009 to the petitioner holding that she is ineligible to hold the house site patta on the following grounds:

¶6

a. You own a house.

¶7

b. Not residing in Village

¶8

c. Benami patta is granted

¶9

d. One or more pattas are granted in the same family.

¶10

Further, the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation within 15 days as to why the house site patta granted in her favour should not be cancelled. The petitioner states that she had submitted her explanation thereto. By the impugned order dated 15.10.2010, respondent No.2 cancelled the house site patta granted in favour of the petitioner observing that he has visited her house for a continuous period of eight days and that the door was locked. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while the

¶12

allotment of house site to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner’s house was locked when respondent No.2 had visited for a continuous period of eight days, the show cause notice does not make a reference of the said allegation though the same was issued on four different allegations.

¶13

A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the reason assigned by respondent No.2 for cancellation of house site patta does not conform with any of the four allegations on which the show cause notice dated 16.09.2009 was issued.

¶14

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of respondent No.2 dated 15.10.2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 11.04.2011. No order as to costs.

¶15

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶16

Date:14.03.2011 Note:Furnish copy within three days bo usd

Smt. Vadla Manemma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vadla Manemma 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

Y.Manjula Vs the District Collector and 3 Others

N.Ramaiah Vs the District Collector and 3 Others

Smt.a.Narayanamma and 6 Others Vs the Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Commissioner and 2 Others

G. Aswartha Narayana Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

M.Thirumeni, Vs The District Collector,.

The Adarsha Nagar Nivasula Sankshema Seva Sangham Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration