The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking mandamus regarding unauthorized interference and threat of dispossession, upholding the recording of a revenue report stating no house existed on the land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
And
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 402 OF 2013
Dated: 04.04.2013
Between: Mohammed Imam and another .. Appellants And The District Collector and two others .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 402 OF 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)
This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.02.2013 in W.P. No.1653 of 2013. The unsuccessful petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.
The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in causing interference and threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession in respect of the premises bearing house No.10-42/1, out of survey No.142/46 of Edulapuram Revenue Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners also sought a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment in respect of the property in question in any manner.
As we could see, the learned Single Judge called for a report from the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Khammam and the report dated 02.02.2013 so submitted by the Principal District & Sessions Judge revealed that the entire land in Survey No.142 was dry and there was no house in existence in Survey No.142, much less the house bearing No.10-42/1 in respect of which the petitioners claimed ownership. The said report was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. That apart, the learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. Though the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition, having regard to the false assertion made by the petitioners resulting in unnecessary public money being spent in causing an inspection of the subject land,
the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition imposed exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that the findings recorded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khammam in his report dated 02.02.2013 are factually incorrect, and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition.
We are afraid that the appellants cannot raise such an objection at this stage. As noticed above, it was specifically recorded by the learned Single Judge that the report of the Principal District & Sessions Judge was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, it is not open to the writ petitioners/appellants to reagitate the issue. Even with regard to exemplary costs imposed, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the learned Single Judge is justified in imposing exemplary costs. Hence, the order under appeal warrants no interference.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal shall stand closed.
_____________ G.ROHINI, J
_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 04.04.2013 Ssp/Ivd
Mohammed Imam and another
The District Collector and two others
G.Rohini
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
