Dismissed

Ravikunta Srinivas v. The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad

Telangana HC18 Jul 2011WP/20009/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.20009 of 2011, the High Court dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of a patta issued to a third party. The court held that the petitioner, having delayed six years after a revenue order crystallised rights in a landless poor person, could not reopen the matter via a writ petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the admission stage with no costs.

Ravikunta Srinivas Vs The District Collector, Adilabad… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.20009 OF 2011

¶3

18^th July 2011. BETWEEN: RAVIKANTI SRINIVAS .. PETITIONER AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ADILABAD DISTRICT ADILABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.20009 OF 2011

¶6

O R D E R :

¶7

This writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to the respondents to consider the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 16.8.2010 for cancellation of patta issued in favour of 4^th respondent in respect of land of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated at Garimalla village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶8

It appears the father of the writ petitioner Late Ravikanti Ramanaiah was originally assigned land of an extent of Ac.3.00 situated in Sy.No.115 situated at Garimalla village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District on 8.11.1978. Contrary to the conditions of the grant the legal representatives of the said Late Ravikanti Ramanaiah, after his death, have alienated the land in question. The purchaser Sri.Mallepula Narayana, S/o Bhoomanna has secured the necessary Pattedar Pass Book and title deed for the land in question in his favour. However, the writ petitioner herein has filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial on 14.5.2004 for restitution of possession of the land in question in his favour. He also seems to have submitted a representation to the District Collector, Adilabad who passed an endorsement thereon on 9.8.2004 for taking appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter, notices were issued to both the writ petitioner as well as Sri.Mallepula Narayana and they have attended the hearing before the Tahsildar whereat Sri.Mallepula Narayana has produced a copy of the proceedings dated 11.10.1993 of granting Pattedar Pass Book in his favour. The Tahsildar appears to have inspected the land in question on 9.10.2004

¶9

along with Mandal Revenue Inspector-I. The inspection revealed Sri.Mallepula Narayana in possession and occupation of the land and the land was also fenced appropriately. The land has been under occupation of Sri.Mallepula Narayana is also vouched of by two other villagers. However, since Sri.Mallepula Narayana has obtained the sale deed from the legal heirs of the deceased – Late Ravikanti Ramanaiah, in contravention of the conditions of the grant, the Tahsildar resumed the land to the Government custody. However, he passed orders assigning the same in favour of Sri.Mallepula Narayana who is found to be a landless poor person and the land is found to be in his occupation and cultivation. Orders to that effect have been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial on 11.10.2004, a copy of which has been communicated to the petitioner also, as could be seen from Ex.P.1 at page 9 of the paper book filed in this writ petition.

¶10

In case the petitioner is aggrieved of this action of the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer in initially resuming the land, but declining to put the legal heirs of the original assignee viz., Late Ravikanti Ramanaiah, in possession, but preferred to assign the same land in favour of Sri.Mallepula Narayana, the 4^th respondent herein, who was found to be a landless poor person by the Tahsildar, the writ petitioner ought to have carried the matter under appeal or revision. Having kept quite for the past six years he cannot now turn around and seek his representation to be dealt with by the Tahsildar. Insofar as the petitioner and the 4^th respondent are concerned the rights with regard to the lands in question have been crystallised by an order passed by the Tahsildar on 11.10.2004. After a lapse of six years, the same cannot be reopened by a side wind, as it is in this case. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶11

Dt: 18-07-2011. ( NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO, J )

¶12

tnb

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.20009 OF 2011

¶15

18^TH July 2011.

Ravikunta Srinivas v. The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikunta Srinivas v. The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad

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

Ramavajhala Maruti Subhash Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

Smt.Juturu Suseelamma Vs The Joint Collector and

Seshapu Snayasi Rao Vs The State rep. by its District Collector

Rumin Ameen Panjwani Vs Regional Passport Officer

Thupakula Mala Kondaiah, Vs The District collector

Induru Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh