Dismissed

A.Madhavi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its District Collector

Telangana HC6 Sept 2013WP/24894/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged the District Collector's alleged interference in her house construction. The Respondent argued a 2001 patta exists, precluding Collectorial intervention. The Court disposed of the petition, directing parties to litigate in a competent court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of. WPMP No.30692/2013 was disposed of as infructuous.

A.Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.24894 of 2013

¶3

Date : 6-9-2013

¶4

Between: A. Madhavi .. Petitioner And

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa and others .. Respondents

¶6

Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader

¶7

for Revenue (Assignment)

¶8

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that at the instigation of respondent Nos.4 to 6, respondent No.3 has been interfering with the petitioner’s construction of house over Ac.0-30 cents in Sy.No.1432 of Kandimalliahpalli village, Brahmamgari Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R District.

¶10

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she was in occupation of the above mentioned land and in recognition thereof, she was issued a D.K.T. patta on 2610-2009. When the petitioner started raising a structure over the said plot, respondent No.3 has objected to the same at the instance of respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶11

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), on instructions, submitted that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 is holding house site pattas and that a patta issued in the name of one Salamma in the year 2001 in respect of the land in question is subsisting. She has further stated that as the house site is covered by a patta, the parties claiming under it are entitled to litigate in a competent court of law and that respondent No.3 is in no way concerned with the disputes between the petitioner and private respondents and he is not interfering with the petitioner’s activity of construction, if any, undertaken by her.

¶12

The above submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶13

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30692/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶15

Date : 6-9-2013

¶16

A.Madhavi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Madhavi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its 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

T. Lakshminarayana, Vs The District Collector, Nellore, Spsr Nellore district.

M/s.Binjusaria Sponge and Power Private Ltd, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

K.Munaswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Sitaravamma W/o Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Polavarapu Veera Raghava Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J.Krishnamachari, Vs The State Government of Andhra Pradesh