Disposed

M.Naveen Babu v. The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District.

Telangana HC9 Dec 2013WP/27786/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the Respondents' alleged interference with the Petitioner's possession of land. The Court directed the Respondents to cause a survey and delineation of the disputed lands within one month. If Government land is found within the Petitioner's possession, proceedings must be initiated. Status quo was maintained during the survey.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.1 to conduct a survey and delineate the subject land within one month; status quo maintained until survey completion; Writ Petition disposed.

M.Naveen Babu Vs The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27786 OF 2013

¶2

Dated 9 th December 2013

BETWEEN:

M.Naveen Babu.

…PETITIONER

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District and three others.

¶8

…RESPONDENTS

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27786 OF 2013

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in trying to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac.1.06 ½ gts situated in Survey No.817/4/A, Paloncha Village and Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

The petitioner pleaded that he is the owner and possessor of the land abovementioned (“subject land” for brevity). He has averred that respondent No.1 has issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P.

¶16

Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (“the Act” for brevity), on 02.04.2013 to his friend, by name Veernala Srinivas, who was authorised to level his land. That without proceeding further with the said notice, respondent No.1 has been preventing the petitioner from enjoying the subject land.

¶17

In compliance with the direction issued by this Court, respondent No.1 is personally present in the Court. On instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) submitted that respondent No.1 has not been interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.06 ½ gts situated in Survey No.817/4/A and that in the guise of enjoying the subject land, the petitioner is trying to encroach upon the Government land in Survey No.817, which is situated far away from the subject land. He has further submitted that the petitioner is trying to alienate the Government land to certain third parties.

¶18

Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is interested only in the subject land and he is not encroaching upon the Government land.

¶19

Inasmuch as there appears to be a dispute over the identity of the property, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 causes a survey to be held and delineate the subject land i.e., Ac.1.06 ½ gts situated in Survey No.817/4/A. On such delineation, if it is found that the petitioner is in possession of the Government land, respondent No.1 shall initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Act. In the converse situation, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of land in Survey No.817/4/A admeasuring Ac.1.06 ½ gts. Respondent No.1 shall complete the abovementioned exercise within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till completion of survey, status quo granted by this Court shall continue.

¶20

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.34479 of

¶22

2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶23

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶24

9^th December 2013 RRB

M.Naveen Babu v. The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Naveen Babu v. The Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakavath Saidulu, s/o Lalu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Mareddy Venkateswara Reddy Vs Devarapalli Kondareddy

B. Ramakrishnamma Vs The District Collector and Magistrate

C. Narayana Swamy Reddy S/o. Late Krishna Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Prl.

Chenuboyina Venkateswarulu , Venkatesu, Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Kamala Bai Choudhary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary