Disposed

Smt.K.Varamma v. The Collector, Medak District

Telangana HC10 Feb 2011WP/10438/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking regularization of an encroached government land held under G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008. The Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's pending representation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2008 for regularization of encroached land and pass orders expeditiously.

Smt.K.Varamma Vs The Collector, Medak District — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 10438 of 2007

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

The petitioner claims that she constructed a house in Sy. No.1, by encroaching government land in an extent of 288 Sq. yards at Pothireddipally village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, about 25 years ago, and is living therein. While so, the petitioner states that she submitted representation dated 07.03.2007, requesting the respondents to regularize her possession by collecting market value of the land. It is her grievance that the respondents without passing any orders on her representation, are trying to dispossess her from the land in question without following the due process of law. Hence, she filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008, for regularization of encroachments of government lands. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims to have submitted representation dated 11.04.2008 requesting the respondents to regularize her possession of the land in question in terms of G.O. Ms. No.166, dated 16.02.2008, and to that effect, she filed W.P.M.P.

¶5

No. 11733 of 2008, praying to permit her to add para 4-A in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, wherein inter alia, while stating that she is entitled to regularization of the land in question, it is contended that directions be given to the respondents to consider her representation dated 11.04.2008 for regularization of the land in question in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008, and to that effect, she also filed another petition in W.P.M.P. No. 11732 of 2008, seeking directions to the respondents to consider her case for regularization of the encroached government land, which is under her possession. This Court, by separate docket order, allowed the said amendment petition today.

¶6

The respondents did not file any counter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on their behalf submitted that the representation dated 11.04.2008 filed by the petitioner seeking regularization of the encroached government land, which is in her possession, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008 is pending. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization. This stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, even before consideration of the representation of the petitioner for regularization, cannot be accepted.

¶7

Be that as it may, since the representation dated 11.04.2008, said to have been made by the petitioner for regularization of the land in question in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008, is pending consideration with the respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶8

Respondent No.1, namely the District Collector, Medak District, is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 11.04.2008, said to have been made by the petitioner for regularization of the land in question, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008, expeditiously, and communicate the orders to the petitioner.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶10

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

10^th February, 2011 IBL

Smt.K.Varamma v. The Collector, Medak District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.K.Varamma v. The Collector, Medak 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

G.Shyam Prasad, Vs G.Kavitha

Smt.a.Vijaya Laxmi Vs Teh Tahsildar / Mro.

Mudiraj Mathya Karmika Sangam Vs Dr. Manmohan Singh

Kotagiri Viswaprasad Vs G.Kotesh

Chennupati Krishna Rao (died) Vs J.Syamala Rao, District Collector, Maharanipeta P.O.

Golla P.T.Karenna , Golla Kareppa, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the