Disposed

Kondru Kanthamma, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Feb 2013WP/25556/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to resume land allotted to an ex-serviceman's widow. Noting that the respondent had not passed an order after receiving the petitioner's explanation, the Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the explanation and pass orders within two months while maintaining the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd Respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's explanation submitted in response to the impugned notice and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Kondru Kanthamma, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.25556 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kondru Kanthamma … Petitioner And The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.25556 of 2008

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Questioning the notice dated 12.11.2008, issued by the 3^rd respondent, Tahsildar, wherein the land in Survey No.880/2 and 843 an extent Ac.1.55 and 2.32 cents situated at Kanigiri Village, Prakasam District that was allotted vide F.Dis.No.97/1410/2001, dated 18.05.2001 in favour of the husband of the petitioner, was sought to be resumed for the public purpose.

¶13

Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed WPMP. No.33406 of 2008 wherein sought direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the petition scheduled land.

¶14

This Court on 21.11.2008 while ordering rule nisi, granted interim stay as prayed for in WPMP. No.33406 of 2008.

¶15

Seeking to vacate the said interim stay, on behalf of the

¶16

3^rd respondent, WVMP. No.3940 of 2010 has been filed.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s husband was an ex-service man in respect of whom land in Survey No.880/2 and 843 an extent Ac.1.55 and 2.32 cents situated at Kanigiri Village, Prakasam District, was allotted vide F.Dis.No.97/1410/2001, dated 18.05.2001. Consequent to death of her husband on 16.07.2005, the petition scheduled land devolved upon the petitioner. While so, the 3^rd respondent issued notice dated

¶18

12.11.2008 stating that the land is required for public purpose. He further submitted that in the impugned notice,

¶19

except stating that the land is required for the purpose of public, nothing has been stated for what purpose the petitioner’s land is required. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 27.11.2008 opposing the impugned notice. Questioning the impugned notice dated 12.11.2008, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶20

On behalf of the respondents, the 3^rd respondent, filed vacate petition/counter affidavit, based on which, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petition scheduled land is required for public purpose for construction of house sites to the eligible families. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner calling explanation for which, the petitioner submitted her explanation and without waiting for further orders,

¶21

the petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained interim stay. Therefore, the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed.

¶22

On behalf of the petitioner, reply affidavit has been filed stating that there are alternative lands in Survey No.875, 876, 879, 881 and 890 in an extent of Acs.11.00, 3.25, 10.00 6.55 and 3.25 cents, respectively, of Kanigiri Village, Prakasam District for meeting the required purpose.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶24

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though alternative land is available for the purpose of construction of houses to the weaker section people, the 3^rd respondent sought to acquire the

¶25

petitioner’s land alone, which was assigned to her husband under exservice man quota. These are all aspects of the merits of the case and this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, at this stage, since the learned counsel on either side categorically averred that in response to the impugned notice, the petitioner offered her explanation and no orders have been passed thereon.

¶26

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, directing the 3^rd respondent, Tahsildar, to consider the explanation, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner in response to the impugned notice dated 12.11.2008, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the meanwhile, the interim stay granted by this Court on 21.11.2008, shall continue.

¶27

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶29

Date: 04.02.2013 LSK

Kondru Kanthamma, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondru Kanthamma, v. The 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

M.v.Kutumba Rao Vs The District Registrar of Stamps and Registration

Mohd. Ateequr Rahman Vs The District Collector

Mohd Ateequr Rahman Vs The District Collecot

Chinthakunta Pedda Pitchi Ramireddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Charan Kumar Vs Governmetn of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle

Nehru Harijana Mahila Mandali (Regd. No. 142/79) Vs District Collector, Guntur.