Disposed

Jakkula Sammayya v. The District Collector

Telangana HC25 Sept 2012WP/28291/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. The court directed the petitioner to submit an explanation to the Tahsildar regarding the validity of his sale and maintained the status quo pending the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit explanation to the Tahsildar within four weeks; status quo existing pending enquiry; no costs.

Jakkula Sammayya Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.28291 of 2009

¶3

Date:25th September, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mr.Jakkula Sammayya S/o.Veerayya

¶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.28291 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 274.65 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 27.02.2006 from Kannuri Sankarachari S/o.Mutti Lingam. After the purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶16

Originally the land 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. Kannuri Sankarachari purchased 480 sq. yards under a registered sale deed from Marri Saraiah. The petitioner purchased 274.65 sq. yards from Kannuri Sankarachari under a registered sale deed, dated 27.02.2006. 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 he 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 24.12.2009. An interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land in his occupation came to be issued on the even date vide WPMP No.36846 of 2009.

¶18

4. The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed counteraffidavit. They also moved WVMP No.3147 of 2012 seeking vacation of the interim stay granted on 24.12.2009.

¶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

¶22

petitioner that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and his sale is saved from the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (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 his contention before the 3^rd respondent that sale in his 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 his 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.28291 of 2009

¶30

Date:25th September, 2012

Jakkula Sammayya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakkula Sammayya 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

Smt Mamidi Odela Mallama Vs The District Collector

Y.Sridhara Rao Vs Apspdcl