Dismissed

P.Sudhakar Naidu, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC29 Oct 2012WP/29910/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Collector's failure to consider title objections regarding the sale of agricultural lands. The court held that the matter involved a clear dispute with an adverse claimant, requiring adjudication by the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the competent civil court; no costs.

P.Sudhakar Naidu, Vs The District Collector — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.29910 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 29.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

P. Sudhakar Naidu.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector, Anantapur & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.29910 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner, before entertaining the document for sale of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents, covered by Sy.No.139, Ac.7.89 cents, covered by Sy.No.220 and Ac.5.94 cents, covered by Sy.No.219, situated at Venkatampalli village of Vajrakarur Mandal in Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather by name Chandrasekhar Naidu was the owner and possessor of aforesaid lands, and through him, the petitioner has succeeded to the property as co-sharer. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent, in collusion with the 2^nd respondent, is trying to transfer the lands in question to some third parties, as such, he submitted a representation objecting for such sale, inspite of the same, such objections are not being considered.

¶15

Having regard to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is a clear dispute with regard to title and possession of the lands in question between the petitioner and respondent No.4. If the petitioner claims any right or title in respect of the lands in question, it is open for him to approach the competent civil Court, but in anticipation of sale of said lands by the 4^th respondent, he cannot seek any directions for consideration of the objections filed before the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

For the aforesaid reasons, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel, WPMP.No.38173 of 2012 stands disposed of.

¶18

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29^th October 2012 ajr

P.Sudhakar Naidu, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sudhakar Naidu, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uppala Sanjeevakka, Vs The District Collector

Yekkanti Snehalatha, Vs The District Registrar

Shankar Prjval Vs The District Collector

A.Krishna Kumar, S/o. a. Gopalaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Sri E.D. Nathan, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Subba Rao, S/o. K. Nagappa Vs The District Collector, Kurnool.