Disposed

Vutukuru Venkateshwar Rao v. The District Collector

Telangana HC3 Jan 2012WP/34921/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition challenging the issuance of ante-dated notices to dispossess the petitioners of long-standing occupancy of houses on alleged government land. The court set aside the impugned notice, directed a fresh notice to be issued for appropriate decision, and stayed coercive eviction steps.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned notice; direct the third respondent to issue a fresh notice and take an appropriate decision; restrain coercive steps for eviction until such decision is taken.

Vutukuru Venkateshwar Rao Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34921 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their houses bearing H.Nos.1-128 & 1-133 respectively situated at Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District, by issuing ante dated notices dated 02.11.2009 through registered post dated 17.11.2011 in the name of the wives of the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their houses.

¶5

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioners are residents of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. As they are shelter- less, they raised tin sheet roofed houses in the Government land in 1978 and have been residing therein continuously since then. The Grampanchayat, Sarapaka also allotted house numbers to their houses and has been collecting house tax from them regularly in respect of the said houses by issuing demand notices. Electricity connections were also given to their houses and they are paying the consumption charges regularly. Voter identity card, house hold cards and health cards were also issued to them by the authorities concerned. They are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said houses since 1978 without any interruption from any authority.

¶6

One Bandi Subba Rao constructed godowns at the back side of the houses of the petitioners 10 years back and there is a small road to reach his godowns from the R&B main road. After the death of the said Subba Rao, his wife leased out the said godowns to one Afzal recently. With an intention to demolish their houses for getting road facing to the said godowns, the said Afzal managed the third

¶7

respondent and got issued the ante dated notice dated 02.11.2009 and sent it under registered post on 17.11.2011 in the name of the wives of the petitioners. There is no road widening programme on the said road and their houses are also situated away from the road margin of R&B road.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they approached the respondents and had shown all the relevant documents showing their long standing possession in respect of the houses in question, the third respondent is making efforts to dispossess them from the said houses without any valid reason or requirement. Hence, this writ petition.

¶9

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No.3.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent got issued the impugned notice by ante dating the same and is trying to dispossess the petitioners from their houses, though their houses are not required for any road widening purpose.

¶11

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Building appearing for the third respondent submits that since the petitioners have occupied the road margin of R&B road, a fresh notice would be issued to them and appropriate decision would be taken thereafter.

¶12

6. The case of the petitioners is that they have raised tin sheet roofed houses by the side of road margin in the year 1978 and their houses were subjected to payment of all taxes and electricity connections were also given to their houses in the names of the petitioners. At the same time, the petitioners have no right or title over the property in question in view of the fact that they have occupied the

¶13

road margin. Whether the land in question is required for road widening or not, the petitioners have no right to occupy the Government land. At the same time, since the petitioners claim to be in possession of the property in question since long time, they have to be evicted in accordance with law. Prima facie, the impugned notice is issued recently by antedating.

¶14

7. Hence, the impugned notice is set aside and the third respondent is directed to take appropriate decision after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioners, as required under law. Till such decision is taken, no coercive steps shall be taken for removal of the huts/tin sheet roofed houses of the petitioners.

¶15

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

______________ K.C.BHANU,J

¶17

Dated: 03.01.2012 va

Vutukuru Venkateshwar Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vutukuru Venkateshwar Rao 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

Rajana Suryanarayana Vs The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (Vuda)

Chakali Narahari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Thattekunta Wadder Vs The Commissioner Jangaon Municipality

K. Ramesh Kumar Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

K. Satyanarayana Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Syed Aziz Vs The Secretary