Disposed

Modegunta Ramachandraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Jan 2013WP/13603/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging dispossession of agricultural land. Court avoided merits regarding possession but directed authorities to consider the case and pass orders after notice within four months. Minor petitions pending closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider petitioner's case and pass appropriate orders after giving notice within four months.

Modegunta Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13603 2010 Dated 24-01-2013

¶2

Between: Modegunta Ramachandraiah.

¶3

…Petitioner.

¶4

And:

¶5

The State of A.P., represented by its District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, A.P., and two others.

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13603 2010 ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in S.No.2066-1, Nellore Bit-I, Kothuru village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as arbitrary, illegal and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s land referred above.

¶9

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

¶10

He is a landless poor belonging to the Schedule Caste community. His mother purchased an extent of Ac.1-51 cents from out of Ac.3-02 cents in S.No.2066-1, Nellore Bit-I, Kothuru village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, by way of registered sale deed dated 313-1960 from one Vallepu Peda Ankaiah and another. Since the date of purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. His mother died in the year 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land, as he got the same through a will dated 5-9-1980 executed by his mother in

¶11

his favour.

¶12

The Land Reforms Tribunal, after considering declaration under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, given by his father, taking into consideration of the land in question, passed an order in LCC No.2115/NLR/75, dated 17-9-1976. Since the respondents are intending to assign the said land in favour of the persons, who are in need of House sites under the Indiramma Housing Programme, they are threatening the petitioner that they would dispossess him from his land stating that the said land is allotted to third parties for the purpose of house sites under the Indiramma Housing Programme on 11-6-2010. On 11-62010, the Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar, came and wanted to survey their land without any notice or order to show that it is a government land. If any auction takes place, it will deprive his right. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court.

¶13

Along with this writ petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P.No.17133 of 2010, seeking to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land in an extent as mentioned in the prayer of the writ petition.

¶14

This Court, on 23-6-2010, while issuing notice before admission in the main writ petition, passed the following order in W.P.M.P.No.17133 of 2010 which reads as under:

¶15

“The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from his land admeasuring Ac.1-51 cents in S.No.2066/I, Nellore Bit-I, Kothur (v), Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR, Nellore District, except in accordance with law.”

¶16

This Court, on 21-3-2011, admitted the writ petition while issuing notice returnable in four weeks.

¶17

While so, the respondents came with an application in W.V.M.P.No.4163 of 2012 seeking to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 23-6-2010 in

¶18

W.P.M.P.No.17133 of 2010.

¶19

A counter-affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent. The case of the 3^rd respondent is as follows:

¶20

The land measuring Ac.3-00 in Sy.No.2066/1 Nellore Bit-I, Kothur village is part and parcel of Ac.131-33 cents resumed by order dated 9-2-2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The land covered by this writ petition was resumed for public purpose as the assignees have violated the conditions of grant and left the land waste on ground and the resumption orders were not issued under the provisions of POT Act. According to the conditions of grant, the Government is at liberty to resume the land so assigned at any point of time without prior notice as mentioned in D-Form pattas, if the government feels that the land so assigned is useful for public purpose. As such, the order dated 9-2-2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore in resuming the land is in accordance with the assignment rules and conditions. No notice was issued to the petitioner as he is not in possession of the same. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of the mother of the petitioner in the year 2005, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land as he got the same through a will dated 5-9-1980 executed by his mother in his favour.

¶23

He further argued that the Land Reforms Tribunal, after considering declaration under the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, given by his father, taking into consideration of the land in question, passed an order in LCC No.2115/NLR/75, dated 17-91976.

¶24

He further submits that the respondents are

¶25

threatening to dispossess him from his land stating that the said land is allotted to third parties for the purpose of house sites under the Indiramma Housing Programme on 11-6-2010 without any notice and as such, the said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the land covered by this writ petition was resumed for public purpose as the assignees have violated the conditions of grant and left the land waste on ground.

¶27

Apart from that, he further submits that according to the conditions of grant, the Government is at liberty to resume the land so assigned at any point of time without prior notice as mentioned in D-Form pattas, if the government feels that the land so assigned is useful for public purpose and hence, the order dated 9-2-2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore is in accordance with the assignment rules and conditions and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Perused the material available on record.

¶29

This Court cannot go into as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the land in question or not.

¶30

It is pertinent to mention that this Court while issuing notice before admission in the main writ petition, passed the interim direction to the effect that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from his land admeasuring Ac.1-51 cents in S.No.2066/I, Nellore Bit-I, Kothur (v), Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR, Nellore District, except in accordance with law.

¶31

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it just and proper to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of

¶32

receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶33

____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 24-01-2013. Dvs

¶34

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.13603 2010 Dated 24-01-2013

Modegunta Ramachandraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modegunta Ramachandraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Palla Jagannadha Rao Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

Duba Venkata Ramana Vs S.Murali

P.Bikshamalah Vs Mr.a.K. Khan

G. Dasarath Reddy Vs District Collector

Y.Sathi Reddy Vs G.Anantha Ramu

M.Kanaka Durga Bai, Vs Prof. E.Manjuvani