Disposed

Yandra Venkata Lakshmi, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012WP/23152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent Tehsildar to accept the petitioner's explanation about the property being bequeathed and prohibited any eviction steps until a final order is passed under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act, 1977. Furthermore, any such final order cannot be enforced within four weeks of its service.

What did the court decide?

1. Respondent to receive petitioner's explanation. 2. No eviction steps until final order under Section 3. 3. Final order unenforceable for 4 weeks of service.

Yandra Venkata Lakshmi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23152 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner states that one Sri Balam Suryanarayana S/o Venkanna was assigned a house site in Plot No.5, carved out of Survey No.47/2 of Mukkamala Village, Amalapuram Taluk, East Godavari District by the then Tahsildar, Amalapuram through proceedings, dated 21.03.1980, and that a house was constructed thereon. According to the petitioner, the assignee had no children and she was not only brought up by him but was also bequeathed the property through a registered Will, dated 26.03.2003. Suryanarayana is said to have died on 18.07.2003.

¶5

The Tahsildar, Ambajipeta Mandal, respondent No.2 herein, issued notice in Form No.II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) to the petitioner on 09.07.2012 alleging that she purchased the plot in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), and requiring her to explain as to why the possession be not resumed. The petitioner states that she went to the Office of respondent No.3 on 25.07.2012 with an explanation stating that the property was bequeathed to her. Her grievance is that respondent No.2 refused to receive the explanation and tried to evict her.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶7

learned Government Pleader for Assignment.

¶8

Respondent No.2 no doubt issued a notice under Rule 3 of the Rules alleging that the petitioner purchased the plot in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner states that she has been bequeathed the property and was brought up by the assignee. Respondent No.2 cannot refuse to receive the explanation. At any rate, the question of evicting the petitioner would arise if only a final order under Section 3 of the Act is passed.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondent No.2 shall receive the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner and shall not take any steps against her unless a final order is passed. In case the final order is passed against the petitioner, it shall not be enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of service thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

¶11

L.NARASIMHA

¶12

REDDY,J Dt:27.07.2012 Note: Issue cc in three days. kdl

Yandra Venkata Lakshmi, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yandra Venkata Lakshmi, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

The Depot Manager, Vs Labour Court

Sri. Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Temple Association, Reg.No5/19 Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

K. Nawaz Vs The Apsrtc

A.Gopal, Vs The Joint Collector

Kalle Siddappa Vs Tahsildar

Adapa Shivaji Naidu Vs The Thasildar Lingasamudram Mandal