Disposed

Dondapati Laxmaiah v. The District Collector, Khammam.

Telangana HC8 Oct 2013WP/29120/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged encroachment by Respondent No.3 on his land while they were alloted adjacent land. The court directed the District Collector to demarcate boundaries within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed of, and the interim relief petition was deemed infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to demarcate boundaries of land allotted to Respondent No.3 within two weeks; civil suit entitlement if interference continues.

Dondapati Laxmaiah Vs The District Collector, Khammam. — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29120 of 2013

¶2

Date: 08.10.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Dondapati Laxmaiah

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

and

¶7

The District Collector, Khammam and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2:Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.3: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas out of total extent of Acs.6.05 guntas in survey No.541 of Velugumatla Village, Khammam Urban Mandal and District. In support of his claim, he has filed copies of pattadar passbook and title deed standing in his name and also a copy of pahani. The petitioner pleaded that the revenue department has allotted and handed over to respondent No.3, Ac.2.00 of land in survey No.548 surrounded by the land in survey No.548 on three sides. The petitioner filed a copy of panchanama dated 10.01.2013, which supports his plea that the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 in survey No.548 is handed over to respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of utilizing the allotted land in survey No.548, respondent No.3 is trying to encroach upon the petitioner’s land in survey No.541.

¶14

In the light of the above grievance of the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to enquire into the grievance of the petitioner and clearly demarcate the boundaries to the land allotted to respondent No.3 in the presence of the petitioner and respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Despite such demarcation, if respondent No.3 continues to interfere with his possession of the land in survey No.541, the petitioner is entitled to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit.

¶15

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

¶16

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36171 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

08^th October, 2013 GHN

¶18

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Dondapati Laxmaiah v. The District Collector, Khammam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dondapati Laxmaiah v. The District Collector, Khammam.

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

Uddutta Satyanarayana S/o. Venkaiah, Vs The Thasildhar

Ganta Lakshmi Devi W/o. Late Sorry Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Nalgonda District.

T. Bheemamma Vs The Asst Director

M. Bhupathi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M/s. Siddardha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri.Ch.v.v.S.Prasad

G.v.Sambi Reddy Vs The Government of India