Disposed

Smt Mamidi Odela Mallama v. The District Collector

Telangana HC25 Sept 2012WP/27685/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a show-cause notice issued under Rule 3 of the AP Assigned Lands Rules for alleged unauthorized transfer of assigned land. The court disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to submit her explanation to the Tahsildar within four weeks, maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the Tahsildar within four weeks; status quo maintained pending enquiry; no costs.

Smt Mamidi Odela Mallama Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.27685 of 2009

¶3

Date:25th September, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt.Mamidi Odela Mallamma W/o.Sri Komaraiah

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad & Ors.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶12

Writ Petition No.27685 of 2009

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The notice issued to the petitioner in Form-II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶15

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 270 sq. yards comprising Survey No.365/1, situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 14.10.1999 from Marri Saraiah. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Originally the land

¶16

admeasuring Ac.2.10 guntas comprising Survey No.365/1 of Garmella Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District was assigned to Arkala Chinna Rajam in the year 1978. After his death, mutation came to be effected in the name of his daughter Smt.Nalla Sayamma in the year 1991-1992. She executed a sale deed in favour of Marri Saraiah S/o.Muthaiah in the year 1993-94. The said Marri Saraiah converted the agricultural land into house plots and sold to various persons. The petitioner purchased 270 sq. yards from Marri Saraiah under a registered sale deed, dated 14.10.1999. The Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Mancherial, Adilabad District-3^rd respondent issued show-cause notice in Form-II to the petitioner to explain as to why she should not be summarily evicted from the assigned land. Assailing the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶17

3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 18.12.2009. An interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land in her occupation came to be issued on the even date vide WPMP No.36049 of 2009.

¶18

4. The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed counteraffidavit. They also moved WVMP No.3138 of 2012 seeking vacation of the interim stay granted on 18.12.2009.

¶19

5. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents.

¶21

7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and her sale is saved from the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands

¶22

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

¶23

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents submits that the alienation in favour of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

¶24

9. Be that as it may, the writ petition is filed questioning the showcause notice issued in Form-II under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, to the petitioner. The petitioner can substantiate her contention before the 3^rd respondent that sale in her favour is saved under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

¶25

10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit her explanation to the Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Macherial, Adilabad District-3^rd respondent, to the show cause notice within four weeks from today. There shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to possession of the land pending the enquiry before the Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Macherial, Adilabad District-3^rd respondent. No costs.

¶26

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶27

Date:25^th September, 2012. cs

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶29

Writ Petition No.27685 of 2009

¶30

Date:25th September, 2012

Smt Mamidi Odela Mallama v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mamidi Odela Mallama 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

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

Durgam Jayant Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Talluri Krishna Murthy Vs The District Collector

Pasarthi SRinivas Vs The District Collector, Adilabad District,Adilabad

Jakkula Sammayya Vs The District Collector

Y.Sridhara Rao Vs Apspdcl