Disposed

Talluri Krishna Murthy v. The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Sept 2012WP/26921/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged respondent inaction regarding a representation about a land parcel donated for a drinking water tank. The court found proceedings initiated under the AP Assigned Lands Act and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondents to expedite proceedings against assignee and purchaser under AP Assigned Lands Act, 1977.

Talluri Krishna Murthy Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.26921 of 2009

¶3

Date:24th September, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Talluri Krishna Murthy S/o.Narayana & Anr.

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District & Anr.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶12

Writ Petition No.26921 of 2009

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Challenge in this writ petition is to the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 on the representation, dated 11.08.2009, submitted by the petitioners.

¶15

2. The petitioners submitted a representation, dated 11.08.2009, to the respondents seeking permission for development of Kunta admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents comprising Survey No.157/3, situated at Krosuru village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District. According to the petitioners, their fore-fathers donated the said land to the Gram Panchayat for being used as a drinking water tank. The revenue

¶16

authorities granted patta for Ac.0.60 cents in favour of Smt.Behara Saraswathi in the year 1978. After the death of Behara Saraswathi, her daughter viz., Saraswathi sold the land to one R.Madhavi under document No.1448/2006. When the said Madhavi tried to occupy the kunta by leveling the land, the Gram Panchayat made an application on 30.06.2009 to the District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur-1^st respondent as well as the Tahsildar, Krosuru Mandal, Krosuru, Guntur District-2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent directed the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the 1^st respondent vide Rc.No.190/09-A, dated 02.07.2009. The villagers made representation to the respondents on 11.08.2009 to take suitable decision to save the land covered by the tank. There being no action on the part of the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 10.12.2009.

¶18

4. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. Bhupathi Nagendra Prasad, Tahsildar, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the action has already been initiated on the representation made by the petitioners on 11.08.2009. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that proceedings have been initiated against the assignee as well as the purchaser by issuing Form-I and Form-II notices. For better appreciation, I may refer para.6 of the counter-affidavit and it is thus:

¶19

“6. In reply to the averments made in paragraph-V of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that as per the prohibition of Transfer of Assigned Land Act, 1977 a Form-II notice under sub-section (2) was issued to Smt.Ravella Madhavi who purchased the land from Smt.Mandadapu Suguna Rajeswary the only daughter of Late Smt.Behara Saraswathi the pattadar vide in this Office Rc.No.190/2009, dated 15.7.2009 to evict from the assigned land who in turn explained that she had purchased the land for considerable amount through a

¶20

registration vide document No.1448/2006, dated 28.8.2006 in Krosur SubRegistrar office and obtained Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed from the Revenue authorities. A notice in Form–I under POT Act 1977 also issued in favour of Smt.Madandapu Suguna Rajeswari daughter of the original assignee was returned on un-served with remarks whereabouts are unknown and submitted that further action for cancellation of assignment issued in favour of late Smt.Behara Saraswathi and Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed issued in favour of Smt.Ravella Madhavi.”

¶21

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

¶22

6. Since the respondents have stated in the counter-affidavit that the action has already been initiated on the representation of the petitioners, dated 11.08.2009, by issuing notices in Form-I and Form-II to the original assignee as well as the purchaser, it cannot be said that the respondents have not taken any action on the said representation.

¶23

7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to expedite the proceedings initiated against the original assignee as well as the purchaser under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. No costs.

¶24

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶25

Date:24^th September, 2012. cs

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶27

Writ Petition No.26921 of 2009

¶28

Date:24th September, 2012

Talluri Krishna Murthy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talluri Krishna Murthy 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

Jammala Markandeyulu Vs The District Collector, Nellore District,Nellore

J.Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Rahul Dev Shankraiyan Vs K. Vasantha Laxmi

V.Sasikala Vs The State of Ap., Rep.byits

Durgam Jayant Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ravinder Reddy, Vs Yerramalla Chinna Reddy