Dismissed

Sunkaranenipeta Paraspara Sahaya Sahakara Sangam v. The District Collector

Telangana HC6 Sept 2012WP/3680/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction not to dispossess society members from assigned land. The Court held that the petition was filed suppressing material facts about prior dismissed petitions and the impossibility of granting pattas on Reserve Forest land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioner.

Sunkaranenipeta Paraspara Sahaya Sahakara Sangam Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 3680 of 2004

¶3

Date: 6.9.2012 Between: Sunkaranenipeta Paraspara Sahaya Sahakara Sangam Ltd., Narsampet Village and Mandal, Warangal District. Petitioner And The District Collector, Warangal and others. ... Respondents

¶4

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 3680 of 2004

¶6

Order:

¶7

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-authorities not to dispossess the members of the petitioner-society from the lands assigned to them in Survey No. 562/1 of Khanapur Village and Mandal, Warangal District. A consequential direction was also sought to the respondents to demarcate the land and fix boundaries.

¶8

According to the petitioner, the petitioner-society is a registered society formed for the purpose of protecting the interests and welfare of Backward Class and Scheduled Caste members of the society. It is stated that some landless poor, Backward Caste and Scheduled Caste members of the petitioner-Society have submitted representation to the Government for assigning the vacant land, pursuant to which, the Government issued proceedings in Rc. No. B/1414/93 dated 29.11.1993 granting patta certificates to the members of the petitioner-

¶9

society. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner-society made representation to the respondents to demarcate the land and fix boundaries, no action has been taken by the respondents thereon. Hence, the petitioner-society filed the present writ petition. While denying the averments made by the petitioner, detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khanapur Mandal, Warangal District and the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal South Division.

¶10

It appears that in respect of the very same grievance, the petitioner along with certain others has earlier filed Writ Petition No. 26769 of 1996 before this Court and through order dated 14.12.2006, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. It is also pointed out that when the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Khanapur Mandal has issued pattas illegally to the petitioner-society in respect of the land in Survey No. 562/1, an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Collector, Warangal wherein it was found that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the pattas without following the due procedure. It is further stated that the land claimed by the petitioner in Survey No. 562/1 is classified as “Reserve Forest” and the same belonged to the Forest Department and no pattas could have been granted with regard to the forest land. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that they were granted pattas is incorrect.

¶11

Apart from that, the petitioner also filed Writ Petition Nos. 7349, 7351 and 7365 of 2008 before this Court claiming allotment of land in Survey Nos. 185/1, 270/1 and 406/100/1 of Khanapur Village and the said writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by a common order on 23.4.2009 observing that the lands claimed by the petitioners are under the control of Forest Department and the said lands are classified as “Reserve Forest”. The petitioner did not disclose about the filing of these writ petitions.

¶12

In view of the fact that the petitioner filed the present writ petition suppressing the material facts, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶14

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶15

6-9-2012

¶16

pnb

Sunkaranenipeta Paraspara Sahaya Sahakara Sangam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkaranenipeta Paraspara Sahaya Sahakara Sangam 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

Ruthala Pothuraju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri v.KArumanchi, Vs The Registrar of Companies

U.Nirmala Devi Vs Registrar of Companies.

Battala Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu Vs The Union of India

Bhupalam Satyanarayana Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Joint Secretary (S.K.C)

H.C.L. Agro Power Limited, Vs A.P. State Water, Land and Trees Authority