Petitioner challenged dispossession of land without legal proceedings. Court held possessor cannot be dispossessed unless statutory procedures are initiated, dismissing the writ petition.
Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioner from the land in question except in accordance with law.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.11392 OF 2005
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The petitioner claims to be owner of Acs.5-00 of land in Survey No.63/39 of Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to him, the land was originally assigned in favour of one Pullaiah on 09-08-1961 by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad District, East Taluk. At that time, it was part of Survey No.63/1. It is pleaded that the land was later subdivided and assigned Survey No.63/39. The petitioner contends that the respondents are trying to dispossess him without initiating any proceedings in accordance with law.
2. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that neither the land was assigned nor any purchase thereof made by the petitioner can confer title upon him. Reference is made to the proceedings that are initiated in respect of the vast extent of land that was assigned to various persons in various sub-divisions of Survey No.63.
3. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Advocate General for the respondents.
4. There is serious dispute as to whether the petitioner has derived title to the land in question. The petitioner’s bases his claim on the assignment said to have been made in favour of his vendor. An attempt is made to convince this Court that the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 does not
apply in view of the provisions under the Lavoni Rules.
5. We do not intend to deal with that aspect in this writ petition. If the petitioner is in possession of the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the respondents except in accordance with law. Even if the respondents are of the view that the so-called assignment in favour of the vendor of the petitioner is not genuine or that the sale effected in favour of the petitioner is invalid, it is only after initiating the proceedings under the relevant provisions of law, that they can dispossess him.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question except in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
______________________ S.V. BHATT, J June 25, 2013. PV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a possessor of land can be dispossessed by respondents without initiating proceedings under relevant provisions of law.
Whether the petitioner's challenge to dispossession should be decided on merits regarding title assignment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner (owner of Acs.5-00 of land in Survey No.63/39)
Respondents
L. Narasimha Reddy
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
