Disposed

Smt. B. Premavathi Bai, v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC3 Feb 2011WP/8844/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondents' plan to demolish her property walls and forcibly dispossess her without notice. The Court upheld the interim stay and disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to serve notice and grant an opportunity of hearing before any such action.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1 and 2 not to demolish or dispossess the petitioner except after putting her on notice, giving her an opportunity of being heard, and then passing an order in accordance with law

Smt. B. Premavathi Bai, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8844 of 2002

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the compound wall and other structures, and to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from her property in an extent of Ac.148 square yards in Sy.Nos.838 and 839/1 and 2 of Chintabavi, Chilakalgud, Secunderabad, without putting her on notice and without following the procedure as arbitrary and illegal.

¶4

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 148 square yards in Sy. No.838 and 839/1 and 2 situated at Chintabavi, Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad. She claims to have purchased the said property from one Sri Bala Narasamma under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1978 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- It is her case that Smt. Bala Narasamma acquired the said property by a registered sale deed dated 16.01.1978 from Sri D. Krishna for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-; the said Krishna was a protected tenant; and thereby the petitioner acquired title over the said property. She filed O.S. No.131 of 1996 which was decreed in her favour on 28.08.1997. The suit filed by the 3^rd respondent is said to have been dismissed. The petitioner later filed O.S. No.47 of 1997 which Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit has since been decreed. While matters stood thus, the 1^st respondent is alleged to have come over to the property, with his staff members and with the 3^rd respondent, seeking to demolish

¶5

the compound wall and forcibly dispossess the petitioner. When she resisted the 1^st and 3^rd respondents are alleged to have threatened to come again with force, and to demolish the compound wall. Apprehending danger to her property, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶6

No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

This Court by order dated 07.05.2002 granted interim directions to the respondents not to demolish the existing structure and not to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from her property. This interim direction continues to remain in force as on date.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly state that any action, which the respondents would take, would only be taken after putting the petitioner on notice, and giving her an opportunity of being heard.

¶9

In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 herein not to demolish or dispossess the petitioner, except after putting her on notice, giving her an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, passing an order in accordance with law. The Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶10

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶11

Date:03.02.2011 MRKR

Smt. B. Premavathi Bai, v. Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. Premavathi Bai, v. Mandal Revenue Officer

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

The Fisharies Industrial Co-operative Society, Vs Kodumula Nagaiah

Plr Projects Private Limited, represented by its Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

K.Deva Baktudu, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Konda Satyanarayana Goud, Vs The Sub Registrar

Smt. K.Premalatha, Vs The District Collecotr

Mandalapu Ramanamma Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer