Disposed

Chandra Kumar H Shah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012WP/30652/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, claiming ownership and holding occupancy rights, sought a declaration against arbitrary interference with their peaceful possession of land in Hyderabad. They alleged visits by residents aimed at marking the land as government property. The court directed respondents not to interfere with possession without following the due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law.

Chandra Kumar H Shah Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 30652 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners herein claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of an extent of 13,166.14 Sq.yds in S.No.105/1, 105/2, 106 and 107, Gudimalkapur village, Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad. They were granted occupancy rights in respect of 21 guntas in S.No.105/1 vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 09.04.2010 and it is claimed that their request for grant of ORC in respect of the rest of the land is under consideration.

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the above said land is arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged that on 15.10.2010 and again on 25.10.2010, the residents of the locality along with the respondent No.5 and their staff visited the land in occupation of the petitioners and tried to mark the property claiming that it is the Government land. Apprehending that the petitioners would be dispossessed highhandedly from the land in question, the present writ petition is filed.

¶6

The 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar filed a counter affidavit in which the possession claimed by the petitioners in respect of 13166.14 Sq.yds situated in

¶7

S.No.105/1, 105/2, 106 and 107 is not disputed. The fact that ORC was granted to the petitioners in respect of 21 guntas situated in S.No. 105/1 has also not been disputed. However, it is contended that a report was submitted by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, Asifnagar Mandal, to the 4^th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad on 21.10.2010 requesting to examine the genuineness of the ORC issued and also requesting to review / cancel the ORC stating that there is no agricultural activity in Hyderabad District and that the land in question is covered by structures.

¶8

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶9

Though it is contended in the counter-affidavit that the adjacent land situated in T.S.No.6, Block-A, Ward 26 of Kulsumpura Village is classified as graveyard and that an order was passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 28.10.2010 directing removal of the encroachments thereupon, nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the land in occupation of the petitioners is covered by the said eviction order dated 28.10.2010.

¶10

As noticed above, the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the land which is the subject-matter of this writ petition is not in dispute. Similarly, the ORC granted to the petitioners on 9.4.2010 is also subsisting as of

¶11

today. That being so, even assuming that the said ORC is not in accordance with law, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed without taking recourse to law.

¶12

However, this Court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion with regard to the title claimed by the petitioners. It is made clear that it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in case it is found that the petitioners are not entitled to continue in possession.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. No costs.

¶14

_________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶15

02^nd February, 2012 KSM/GBS

Chandra Kumar H Shah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kumar H Shah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Singam Prabhakar Vs Dr. Sameer Sharma I.A.S.

N. Parvathamma, Vs The Deputy Director

Pasya Sreekanth, Vs Sri Krishna Babu, Chairman and Managing Director

Yanamandra Srinivasa Rao, Vs Govt. of A.P.

Kanakamedal Naga Murali Vs The District Collector

S. Padmaja Vs The District Collector