Disposed

Obula Reddygari Reddeppa Reddy, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC15 Feb 2012WP/748/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration regarding alleged arbitrary assignment of land. It directed maintenance of the status quo regarding possession until the Revenue Divisional Officer passes an order pursuant to an earlier writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Order for maintenance of status quo regarding possession of the land in question till appropriate order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer.

Obula Reddygari Reddeppa Reddy, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.748 OF 2012

¶2

Dated: 15.02.2012

¶3

Between : Obula Reddygari Reddeppa Reddy … Petitioner And The District Collector and 2 others … Respondents

¶4

The Court made the following:-

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.748 OF 2012

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

The 3^rd respondent herein had earlier filed Writ Petition No.19728 of 2011 and it was disposed of by this Court by order dated 14.07.2011 with a direction to the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report and based upon such report, the SubCollector/RDO shall take a decision with regard to the assignment of Ac.3-33 cents of land situated in survey No.688 of Kothavaripalle village of Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶8

The writ petitioner claims that he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.3-33 cents of land in Sy.No.688 and that his possession has also been upheld by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.61 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Madanapalle. It is alleged that though the enquiry as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.19728 of 2011 has not yet been completed, the 2^nd respondent has been taking steps to assign the land in his possession in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Hence this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the 2^nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶10

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 on instructions stated that in terms of the order in W.P.No.19728 of 2011, the Tahsildar has already submitted his report to the Sub-Collector/RDO, Madanapalle and the appropriate decision is yet to be taken by the Sub-Collector/RDO.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession of the land in question (i.e., land which is the subject-matter of A.S.No.61 of 2004) shall be maintained in all respects till appropriate order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle in terms of the order in Writ Petition No.19728 of

¶12

2011, dated 14.07.2011. No costs.

¶13

___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 15.02.2012 Ivd

Obula Reddygari Reddeppa Reddy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obula Reddygari Reddeppa Reddy, 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

M/s. Anand Granite Exports (P) Ltd., 58-12-2, Municipal Vs M/s. Veerabhadra Minerals (P) Ltd., 101, Sri Sai Sannidi

Niraj Public School Parents Association, Vs Jivitesh Reddy, S/o. Sri Ramender Reddy

R Suresh Vs Sri Sunder Abner

Shaik Shoukath Ali Vs The District Collector

B. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o B. Chenna Reddy Vs The Commissioner/ Director Collegiate Education

Ch. Srinivas Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer