Disposed

B.Lachaiah, v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC29 Apr 2011WP/11361/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A one-line order dismissing a writ petition challenging a demolition notice. The Court refused to entertain the petition, directing the Tahsildar to receive the petitioner's explanation, consider it objectively, and pass appropriate orders, ensuring a reasonable period for removal.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Tahsildar is directed to receive the petitioner's explanation, consider it objectively, and pass appropriate final orders after giving a reasonable period for removal.

B.Lachaiah, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2011

¶3

Date: April 29, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Lachaiah … Petitioner And 1. The Tahsildar, Velgatoor, Karimnagar District and 3 others. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2011

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

Though this writ petition has been instituted calling in question the notice dated 04^th February 2010 issued by the first respondentTahsildar, Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar District, proposing to demolish the house of the petitioner situated in Survey No.179 of Maredpally village, Velgatoor Mandal, Karimnagar district, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue obtained instructions in the matter from the Tahsildar, Velgatoor.

¶11

2. It is brought out by the Tahsildar that the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B Sub-Division, Sultanabad vide his letter dated 07^th August 2009 brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that the writ petitioner has encroached on to the road boundary at KM 9/6 of Maredpally village and requested the Tahsildar for removal of this encroachment. Hence, he issued the notice dated 04.02.2010, which is called in question in this writ petition. Then W.P. No.810 of 2011 appears to have been instituted by some other individual seeking for

¶12

removal of this encroachment. That writ petition was disposed of on 24^th January 2011 directing the Tahsildar, Velgatoor, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, the Tahsildar requested the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B, Sultanabad to arrange for marking of the encroached portion. Thereafter, the Tahsildar appeared to have issued a notice to the writ petitioner under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, on 27^th April 2011, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation within fifteen (15) days.

¶13

3. It is therefore clear that the first respondent-Tahsildar is acting in accordance with law. It is therefore needless for me to entertain this writ petition. It would be sufficient if I direct the first respondentTahsildar to receive the explanation of the petitioner herein and consider the same objectively and pass appropriate final orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is also needless for me to observe that in case any structure standing on the encroached site is required to be removed or demolished, a reasonable period of time of not less than 30 (thirty) days may have provided to the petitioner so as to make necessary arrangements by him. If the petitioner fails to make any such arrangements and if he fails to remove the structures standing on the encroached portion, then alone appropriate action of demolition be undertaken by the respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶16

Date: April 29, 2011. BSB

B.Lachaiah, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Lachaiah, v. The Tahsildar

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

The State of a.P.rep.by its Collector, Vs Estate Abolition Tribunal(Vizianagaram) - Cum

D. Venkata Ramana Vs The Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary

Md. Mahboob Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

R.Satyanarayana Setty Vs The Revenue Divisonal Officer

Smt.Budamcherla Adilakshmi, W/o. Ramaiah, Vs The Tahasildar

M/s.Rockworld Engineers Vs The Commissioner