Dismissed

Kanregula Lakshmi Talli v. The District Collector

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011WP/28235/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandatory enforcement of survey operations and pattedar passbook issuance regarding specific surveyed land. Court dismissed petition since petitioner failed to establish enforceable legal right to the land in question as per counter affidavit asserting encroachment status.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed along with costs of Rs.500/-.

Kanregula Lakshmi Talli Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.28235 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition has been instituted seeking a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the in-action of the Respondent No.2 in not conducting an enquiry as per the directions of the

¶5

1^st respondent/District Collector, Visakhapatnam, in his proceedings dated 18.09.2010.

¶6

2. The Tahsildar, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam, has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that the 1^st respondent/District Collector, Visakhapatnam, has received an application through the Prajavani Scheme from the petitioner with a request to survey the land in Sy.No.55 of Nallaregalapalem Village and issue pattedar passbooks. Based thereon, the Collector made an endorsement to conduct an enquiry into the matter as per rules and to send a report on the action taken in the matter. In paragraph 3, it is stated by the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram Mandal, that the father of the writ petitioner Sri Pathakam Setty Jagga Rao does not own any land in Sy.No.55/1 of Nallaregulapalem Village and on the other hand, he is an encroacher to an extent of

¶7

Ac.0.90 cts in Sy.No.55/1, which land is classified as Government land. It is also asserted that the father of the writ petitioner owns zeroythi land measuring an extent of Ac.0.60 cts in Nallaregulapalem Village. Therefore, the question of issuing a pattedar passbook for land in Sy.No.55 or conducting any survey operations therein would not arise.

¶8

3. In view of this specific averment contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam, I

¶9

consider it appropriate to dismiss this writ petition, in as much as, unless the writ petitioner establishes his enforceable legal right to the land in Sy.No.55, the question of conducting or undertaking survey operations or issuance of pattedar passbooks in his favour would not arise. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-.

¶10

_______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶11

16^th December, 2011 Sp

Kanregula Lakshmi Talli v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanregula Lakshmi Talli v. The District Collector

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

E.Subba Reddy Vs The District Collector

Prattipati Jogi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.B.Bala Tripura Sundaramma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Public Information officer

Dev Kishan Ladda, Vs Shriram Capital Finance and Chits Kothagudem

Syed Khairuddin Ali Khan Vs Sri S.Bala Krishna

Nunavath Veeranna Vs Nagati Suresh