Dismissed

Ollala.Laxmi v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC10 Sept 2012WP/32756/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order regarding writ petitions and contempt cases concerning illegal construction on government land. The Court set aside an order passed without a hearing and directed the District Collector to inquire into the genuineness of a possession certificate within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order in W.P.No.28678 of 2011 set aside and restored to file; direction to District Collector to inquire into genuineness of possession certificate within two months; all other proceedings close.

Ollala.Laxmi Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.32756 of 2011 and 13045 of 2012; CONTEMPT CASE (SR) No.1361 of 2012 and CONTEMPT CASE No.197 of 2012; and REVIEW W.P.M.P.No.35317 of 2012 and W.P.No.28678 of 2011

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

C.C.No.197 of 2012 is filed alleging violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.28678 of 2011 dated 28.10.2011. Review W.P.M.P.No.35317 of 2012 is filed by the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28678 of 2011 dated 28.10.2011. W.P.No.32756 of 2011 is filed, by the wife of the third respondent in C.C.No.197 of 2012, for a direction declaring the action of the Tahsildar, in meddling with the construction of their residential house of an extent of 0.02½ guntas in survey No.368 of Suraiahpally Village of Manthani Mandal in Karimnagar District, as arbitrary and illegal. W.P.No.13045 of 2012 is filed both by the third respondent in C.C.No.197 of 2012 and his wife to set aside the First Information Report in Crime No.74 of 2012 of P.S.Manthani, Karimnagar District, dated 17.04.2012. C.C(SR).No.1361 of 2012 is filed to punish the respondent for violation of the order passed in W.P.No.32756 of 2011 dated 14.12.2011.

¶5

The petitioners in C.C.No.197 of 2012 had filed W.P.No.28678 of 2011 claiming to have put up huts on an extent of Ac.1.03 guntas in survey No.368 of Suraiahpally Village, and for grant of house site pattas, as they belonged to the weaker sections of society, and were landless poor. They placed reliance on an order of this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.20122 of 2005 in W.P.No.15840 of 2005 dated 21.07.2005, whereby this Court had directed the respondents to consider the representations made by them for allotment of land in survey No.368 of Suraiahpally Village for residential purposes. It is the case of the petitioners, in the Contempt Case, that, while their

¶6

representation for grant of house sites was pending, the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition (third respondent in the Contempt Case) had raised construction on government land despite which the respondent-officials did not initiate any action against him. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, informed this Court that the petitioners’ application for grant of house sites was still pending consideration and, as the fourth respondent had raised an illegal construction over government land, they had already initiated action, seized the material and had stopped further construction; and had informed the concerned police officials with regards the illegal constructions raised by the fourth respondent. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this Court considered it inappropriate to issue any further directions in this regard. Contempt Case No.197 of 2012 is filed alleging failure on the part of the respondent officials in preventing construction being resorted to by the third respondent-contemnor.

¶7

In the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.13045 of 2012 it is stated that, the respondent had issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 01.11.2011, alleging that an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas in Survey No.368 had been encroached upon; and they were called upon to show cause why action should not be taken for recovery of possession over the said extent; they had submitted a reply stating that they had not encroached on government land, and the respondent had assigned house site patta over an extent of Ac.0.02½ guntas of land in survey No.368; the respondent had sought to interfere with their construction without looking into the record and without examining that the first petitioner was given a possession certificate in view of her long standing possession of more than fifteen years; they had obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction; the second respondent-Tahsildar had lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Manthani Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.74

¶8

of 2012 for offences punishable under Section 447 read with Section 34 IPC; and the said complaint was malicious and must, therefore, be set aside.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.32756 of 2011 the very same facts are reiterated, and a copy of the possession certificate dated 08.07.2002 is filed which is said to have been certified by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Manthani, to the effect that possession of 0.02½ guntas of land was being given in view of the long standing possession of Smt.O.Laxmi, wife of the third respondent in C.C.No.197 of 2012. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the revenue officials, the genuineness of this certificate dated 08.07.2002 is put in issue, and it is contended that the said certificate is bogus.

¶10

Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in both W.P.No.13045 of 2012 and W.P.No.32756 of 2011, would submit that the said Mandal Revenue Officer is still in service; the certificate dated 08.07.2002 is genuine, and not bogus; and, in view of the petitioners having been put in possession, the said certificate dated 08.07.2002 confers on them the right to resort to construction. Learned Counsel would contend that the family members, of the petitioners in C.C.No.197 of 2012, have been assigned land; and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for assignment of government land. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the question, whether or not the petitioners in the Contempt Case are eligible for assignment of agricultural land or for house sites, as their eligibility is not put in issue.

¶11

The only question which necessitates examination is whether the third respondent, in C.C.No.197 of 2012, is justified in resorting to construction. The dispute revolves around the genuineness or otherwise of the certificate dated 08.07.2002 and, if as contended by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the said certificate is bogus, then the possession of the third respondent and his wife

¶12

over government land is patently illegal, and the action of the respondents in resorting to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act cannot be faulted. On the other hand if the certificate is genuine, then the construction raised on such land cannot be said to be illegal. It is, therefore, necessary that an enquiry is caused into the genuineness or otherwise of the said certificate dated 08.07.2002.

¶13

Since the petitioner has made allegations against the Tahsildar, including of his having filed a malicious criminal complaint, I consider it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Karimnagar, who is the first respondent in C.C.No.197 of 2012, to cause an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the possession certificate dated 08.07.2002 after putting the parties concerned on notice, and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. The District Collector shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, and only thereafter, if need be, take further action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act. It is made clear that, till orders are passed by the District Collector in terms of the directions issued hereinabove, neither should any action be taken against the third respondent in C.C.No.197 of 2012 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, nor shall the third respondent make any further constructions over the land in question. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed by the District Collector, shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

The petition is filed, seeking review of the order passed in W.P.No.28678 of 2011, on the ground that the petitioner in the review petition (respondent in the writ petition) was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the order was passed. W.P.No.28678 of 2011 was disposed of in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the construction raised was illegal, unauthorized and on government land. As the order, in

¶15

W.P.No.28678 of 2011 dated 28.10.2011, was passed without giving the petitioner in the review petition an opportunity of being heard, the said order is set aside and W.P.No.28678 of 2011 is restored to file. The Review W.P.M.P.No.35317 of 2012 is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

In the light of the observations made hereinabove, I see no reason either to adjudicate W.P.No.28678 of 2011 on merits or to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶17

The Contempt Cases are closed and all the three Writ Petitions, (i.e., W.P.No.28678 of 2011, W.P.No.32756 of 2011 and W.P.No.13045 of 2012), are disposed of in accordance with the directions given hereinabove. The interim orders, if any passed in the Writ Petitions, stand automatically vacated. No costs.

¶18

_______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 10.09.2012 vs

Ollala.Laxmi v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ollala.Laxmi v. The Tahsildar

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

M/s Indur Green Power Private Ltd., Vs -

Aditya Kandula Reddy, Vs M/s Square Feet Constructions Private Limited

M/s Perpetual Energy Systems Ltd., Vs -

V. Nagamuni Reddy Vs Sri Jhon Samson (Commissioner)

Matli Kamala Vs Sri. Jhon SamSon

M/s Sri Raja Rajeswara Finance and Investments Ltd., Vs -