Allowed

S.J. Sugunakar v. The District Collector

Telangana HC5 Nov 2012WP/23809/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a land purchaser against an eviction attempt. The Court held that since resumption orders were passed only against prior transferees and not the petitioner, whose title was recognized via pattadar pass book, the respondents cannot interfere with his possession.

What did the court decide?

Respondents shall not interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the land unless proceedings are initiated in accordance with law.

S.J. Sugunakar Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23809 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land in Survey No.661/2A of Surappakasam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 1995 from one Sri Venkataramaiah. The vendor of the petitioner was assigned Ac.1.98 cents of land in the year 1970. The petitioner states that the respondents are trying to evict him from the said land on the basis that the land has been resumed to the Government. He states that an application has been submitted by him to the District Collector, Chittoor, respondent No.1 herein, with a request to assign the land by collecting the market value and that even while the application is pending, the respondents are trying to evict him.

¶4

A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, respondent No.2 herein. It is stated that an extent of Ac.1.98 cents of land was assigned to Sri Venkataramaiah and it was found that an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.661/2A out of Acs.3.32 cents was alienated in favour of Sri K.Subramanyam, and two others, namely K.Bhagyalakshmi and Sri K.Chengalrayulu purchased Ac.1.45 cents and Ac.1.00 respectively in the year 1993 and on finding that the sales are in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), proceedings were initiated and the

¶5

land was resumed to the Government. According to him, the petitioner does not have any right to remain in possession of the land, much less to be assigned on payment of market value.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶7

The petitioner purchased the land in the year 1995. There is no denial of the fact that the land in Survey No.66/2A was assigned to one Sri Venkataramaiah. In case proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Act, it would have been open for him to pursue the remedies under the Act. The record, however, discloses that it was only against three persons referred to above, namely K.Subramanyam, K.Bhagyalakshmi and Sri K.Chengalrayulu, that orders of resumption were passed. The transfer made in favour of the petitioner remained untouched. Obviously for this reason, respondent No.2 has also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.1.50 cents of land referred to above. Therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land unless the proceedings are initiated in accordance with law.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not in any way interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over Ac.1.50 cents of land in Survey No.661/2A of Surappakasam Village, Renigunta Mandal,

¶9

Chittoor District as long as the transfer in his favour and the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to him are in force. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

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

¶11

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dt.05.11.2012.

¶13

kdl

S.J. Sugunakar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.J. Sugunakar 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

Ganisetty Sominaidu, S/o Late Atchanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

Chinnamuru Mastanaiah Vs The Tahasildar

J.Praveen Kumar, Vs The District Collector

Hafez Syed Ahmed, Vs The District Collector

Konda Varamma Vs The District Collector

Devalapalli Jayamma Vs District Collector