Remanded

Smt. Sk. Baby D/o Late Khasim Ali v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam

Telangana HC4 Jan 2013WP/10768/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the legality of proceedings cancelling possession certificates. The court held that the impugned proceedings were issued without notice, violating natural justice. It remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition remanded to respondent authorities for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the petitioners within two months.

Smt. Sk. Baby D/o Late Khasim Ali Vs The Mandal Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10768 2005

¶3

Dated 04-01-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

S.K.Baby and others.

¶6

…Petitioners.

¶7

And:

¶8

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Urban,Khammam and another.

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.10768 2005

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.B/7002/2003, dated 23-3-2005 issued by the respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

¶15

She was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 110 Sq.yards bearing H.No.4-6-261/11 situated in Khammam town for the last more than 12 years and earlier to that, her ancestors were also in possession of the same. Possession certificate was also issued to her on 16-7-2004. In the same manner, the 2^nd petitioner was also in possession of the same extent bearing the same house number in Khammam town and was also issued possession certificate. The 3^rd petitioner was also issued possession certificate on the same day.

¶16

Government regularized their possession over the Government land as they are poor people. When they are peacefully enjoying the property, the respondent-authorities due to the pressure of some rich influenced persons issued proceedings No.RC/B/7002/2003 dated 23-

¶17

3-2005 stating that one Kona Venkateswar Rao filed a petition saying that the above lands belongs to him and one more person by name Devisetti Dhanalaxmi was also given construction permission in respect of the same land. Hence, this writ petition.

¶18

On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed. The brief averments of the counter is as follows:

¶19

The then Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar issued orders stating that the possession certificates were issued to the petitioners by the then Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, erroneously basing on a false report given by the earlier Mandal Revenue Inspector and Surveyor. It is a vacant at present covered with a dilapidated condition of the compound wall. They are also not in possession of the disputed land at present. Devisetti Dhanalaxmi made a gift deed in favour of Kona Venkateswararao. If at all, the petitioners are aggrieved against the cancellation of proceedings of the house site pattas/possession certificates, they can approach the appellate authority concerned and get redressal under the assignment rules. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Perused the material available on record.

¶21

The main contention of the petitioner is that possession certificates were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer after due enquiry by proceedings dated 16-7-2004 and accordingly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued impugned proceedings without issuing any notice to the petitioners and therefore, impugned proceedings is in violation of the principles of the natural justice.

¶22

The impugned proceedings dated 23-3-2005 does not show whether the petitioners are given any notice before issuing impugned proceedings. Hence, the matter is required to be remitted to the respondent-authorities for fresh consideration.

¶23

Without going into the merits of the case, this matter is remitted

¶24

to the respondent-authorities directing them to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing the petitioners.

¶25

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 04-01-2013. Dvs

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.10768 2005

¶29

Dated 04-01-2013

Smt. Sk. Baby D/o Late Khasim Ali v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sk. Baby D/o Late Khasim Ali v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam

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

N.S. Shivanandam Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department

Pota Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar

Chode Venkat Rao Vs The Dist Collector

a.P. State Oilseeds Growers Federation Ltd., Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretary to Govt.

Yelka Narsi Reddy, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Manchirevula Buchi Reddy, Vs District Collector