Dismissed

G. Umamaheswari W/o Mohanachari v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary

Telangana HC3 Mar 2011WP/26298/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismissed a writ petition filed by occupants of government land. The court held that petitioners not in possession are not entitled to relief. For residents, the authority must first follow due process before eviction, preventing immediate dismissal of their specific prayer. The writ was ultimately dismissed with costs. The provided text contains conflicting relief instructions reg

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners in possession not entitled to regularization without due process; others in possession must see compliance before eviction is sought.

G. Umamaheswari W/o Mohanachari Vs The Government of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 26298 of 2007

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

The petitioners state that they occupied small extents of government land in Sy. No. 469 of Oteru Colony, Vedanthapuram village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, and having erected small huts/constructed small houses therein, are living since the last several years, and that they are also paying taxes to the Vedanthapuram Gram Panchayat. While so, it is their grievance that the respondents without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are trying to dispossess them from their huts/houses. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions.

¶5

As in spite of granting sufficient time, the respondents did not get any instructions in the matter, this Court by order dated 07.03.2008 directed the respondents to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date with respect to the land in question, and subsequently by order dated 22.04.2008, extended the same until further orders, and thereafter, by order dated 16.12.2009 made it absolute.

¶6

In the counter filed by the respondents in support of the vacate stay petition, respondent No.4, namely the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, has taken a stand that the land in question, was originally assigned to one Smt. Mudiki Suguna, vide DKT patta dated 19.04.1955, and as the original assignees, alienated the same in favour of third parties, in violation of the conditions of assignment, respondent No.4, after following the due process of law, cancelled the original D-Form patta, vide proceedings dated 20.02.1986 and resumed the land in favour of the Government on 09.03.1986. He

¶7

further contended that on ground, there are some encroachments, and about 10 houses are existing therein, and that out of the 27 petitioners herein, only three petitioners, namely petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6, are residing in the houses, while rest of them are residing elsewhere, however, they filed the writ petition, stating as if they are residing in the land in question. He further contended that since petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are residing in the dwelling house since 2004, they are not entitled to any regularization, while other petitioners also are not entitled to any relief because they are not even in possession of the land in question.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶9

According to the own admission of the petitioners, they have occupied government land and residing therein. May be, they are paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat, but that by itself do not confer any title on the petitioners. Though the petitioners contend that they are entitled to continue in the land and seek regularization, the fact remains, it is the specific case of the respondents that except petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6, rest of the petitioners are not residing in the land, and as such, they are not entitled to regularization, and that even though petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6, are in occupation of the land, they are also not entitled to regularization of their possession, because they are residing since 2004. Since the petitioners, except petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6, are said to be not in possession of the land in question, I am of the considered opinion that they are not entitled to any relief. However, so far as petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are concerned, the respondents before seeking to evict them from the land in question, shall follow the due process of law.

¶10

Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is

¶11

dismissed. No costs.

¶12

N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶13

Dated: 3^rd March, 2011 IBL

G. Umamaheswari W/o Mohanachari v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Umamaheswari W/o Mohanachari v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary

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

Zaheer Ahmed Khan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Balagalla Karre Sayanna ( died ) Vs The Joint Collector

Sri a. Satyanarayana, Vs Sri P. Narasimha Yadava

Madala Suresh babu Vs Mrs. Madala Kalpana

Gone Bal Reddy Vs Smt. Kota Anila

G.Srinivas Rao Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer, Parvathipuram