The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the eviction of landless persons from allotted house sites. It directed the respondents not to evict the petitioners except after following due process, including notice and an opportunity of being heard.
Directed respondents not to evict petitioners except after notice and opportunity of hearing.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.11449 of 2002
ORDER:
The action of the respondents, in seeking to demolish the structures raised in premises No.5-24/46 constructed over plot Nos.46, 47 and 110 of Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without notice, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. A consequential direction is sought not to demolish the structures raised.
Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners claimed to be landless poor persons residing at Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the last 15 years. It is their case that they submitted representations for assignment of house sites; and the respondents, after due inspection, had allotted house sites in plot Nos. 46, 47 and 110 in Sy.No.24 of Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners claim that their possession was regularised; and they were issued patta certificates in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 20.10.1995. Photostat copies of a few such pattas are enclosed to the Writ Petition. They claim to have raised thatched structures as they were unable to construct pucca houses. They also claim to have been paying electricity charges regularly. It is their grievance that, on 23.06.2002, the respondents visited their houses, and asked them to vacate therefrom on the ground that allotment of adjacent plots was proposed to be made to others as house sites.
This Court, by order dated 26.06.2002, granted interim directions. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would, however, submit that the petitioners had invoked this Court’s jurisdiction on
mere apprehension and no action would be taken against them except in accordance with law.
I consider it appropriate, therefore, to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their houses aforementioned except, after putting them on notice, giving them an opportunity of being heard, and on passing an order thereafter, in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:03.02.2011 usd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents can demolish the structures without putting the petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity of being heard.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
