Disposed

Kurumeti Venkama Naidu, v. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Telangana HC26 Apr 2011WP/11122/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed the impugned order dismissing the petitioners' application due to failure to appear. It directed the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh inquiry on a specified date by following up at the petitioners' new address granted two months to conclude the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order stayed; inquiry directed to be conducted on May 3, 2011 or subsequent date; two months time granted to conclude inquiry.

Kurumeti Venkama Naidu, Vs Chief Commissioner of Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11122 of 2011

¶3

Date: April 26, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. Kurumeti Venkama Naidu & another … Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

1. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.11122 of 2011

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Naidupet Mandal of Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District.

¶13

2. For the purpose of disposing of this case, it would not be really necessary to notice all the facts and contentions canvassed in the writ petition. Suffice it to notice that on the last occasion when the writ petitioners herein approached this Court and instituted W.P. No.26958 of 2009, by order passed on 10^th December 2009, the Tahsildar, was directed by this Court to hear the petitioners and then decide the issue. Thereafter, a contempt case No.1912 of 2010 was instituted complaining that the order passed by this Court has not been given effect to. That contempt case is still pending.

¶14

3. It is now stated by the Tahsildar, Naidupet, in his proceedings dated 01.3.2011 that all the concerned officials have visited Bheemavaram village, hamlet of Nelaballi on 18^th February 2011 and conducted an open inquiry at Sree Rama Mandiram. The villagers in

¶15

one voice informed the officials that Sri Kurumeti Venkama Naidu, son of Venkama Naidu and Kurumeti Madhava Naidu, son of Venkama Naidu are never the residents of Bheemavaram village and that their names are also not reflected in the voters list of the village and as per the panchayat records also they do not own any house or house site patta in the village and that even the fair price shop dealer has given particulars setting out that there are no cardholders with the said names. Hence, the Tahsildar has concluded the inquiry. It is also recorded that notices, which were sent to the petitioners through registered post, have been since returned undelivered on 28^th February 2011 and a notice was also got published in a local newspaper issue dated 26^th February 2011 calling upon the petitioners to appear. Since they failed to do so, the impugned order came to be passed, without hearing them.

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri L. Ravichander, submits that the writ petitioners have submitted a representation to the Tahsildar, Naidupet, on 27^th January 2011 intimating him that the petitioners have shifted their residence to Srikalahasti in view of the educational needs of their children. In the said communication they have furnished their addresses as under:

¶17

Kurumeti Venkama Naidu, S/o Venkama Naidu alias Ragappa Naidu, Near Harihara Bavi, Gandla Street, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District.

¶18

5. Learned Government Pleader, who received instructions from the Tahsildar, disputes about any such representation made by the petitioner on 27^th January 2011. To break this impasse, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri L. Ravichander, volunteers that the writ petitioner will appear before the Tahsildar, Naidupet Mandal, on 03^rd May 2011 between 10-30 a.m and 1-30 p.m. The Tahsildar, Naidupet, will hear them and pass appropriate orders thereafter. For this course

¶19

of action, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue also consents.

¶20

6. Hence, the impugned order is ordered to be kept in abeyance for the present, till such time, the Tahsildar, Naidupet, conducts an inquiry on 03^rd May 2011 or any other subsequent date, which he will intimate to the petitioners at the address mentioned supra by registered post and conclude the same. Two months time is granted from 03^rd May 2011 for completing and concluding the inquiry. The claims of the petitioners will be considered appropriately and orders either confirming the impugned order or suitably modifying the same be passed and communicated to the petitioners. All contentions canvassed in this writ petition are kept open.

¶21

7. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶23

Date: April 26, 2011. BSB

Kurumeti Venkama Naidu, v. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurumeti Venkama Naidu, v. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

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.Pratheek Vs The Osmania University

G. Ramesh Kumar, Vs A.P. State Police Housing Corporation Limited

Sardar Singh Vs The District Collector

J.Ramamurty, S/o Chinnabba Naidu, Vs The Tahsildar, B.N.Kandriga Mandal

D.Bojia Reddy, S/o Sri Devara Bali Reddy, Vs District Collector, Chittoor

Vatupalli Koteswara Rao Vs The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole