Disposed

Smt. Mandalapu Saraladevi, v. The Special Deputy Collector

Telangana HC26 Nov 2013WP/31190/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging dispossession of lands in Aswapuram Mandal. Court held that respondents cannot dispossess petitioners without following due process of law and directed them to issue notice and provide an opportunity of hearing before proceeding. Petitions disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue notice and provide opportunity before dispossessing petitioners; liberty to approach common law courts granted.

Smt. Mandalapu Saraladevi, Vs The Special Deputy Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.31169, 31190, 32201 and 32379 of 2013

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

These Writ Petitions have been filed with a common grievance, namely; that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in their occupation without following due process of law.

¶4

The petitioners have pleaded that they are in possession of the lands in Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District, the details of which are given as

¶5

under: -

¶6

Survey No.	Village
Extent
127/1	Amerdha Revenue Village
Acs.2.25 guntas
127/1	Amerdha Revenue Village
Acs.2.25 guntas
111	Amerdha Revenue Village Ac.1.31
guntas
111	Amerdha Revenue Village Ac.1.31
guntas

¶7

It is their further case that on the complaint given by certain tribals, LTR Case Nos.115/2010/ASPM, 114/2010/ASPM, 112/2010/ASPM and 111/2010/ASPM were initiated against the petitioners and that by separate orders passed on 10.08.2010, respondent No.1 has closed the proceedings holding that the lands in occupation of the petitioners belong to the Government and that therefore, no proceedings for

¶8

restoration of possession of immovable property by invoking the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 would lie as no transfer of lands has been involved. The grievance of the petitioners is that though their families have been in possession of the property for the last 50 years, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been unduly interfering with their possession of the same.

¶9

This Court on 31.10.2013 adjourned the case to enable the respondents to file counter-affidavits. No counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents.

¶10

As noted above, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have been trying to dispossess them from the above-mentioned lands. However, they candidly admit that they are in possession of the Government land.

¶11

In my opinion, the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioners from the above-mentioned lands without following due process of law. Accordingly, if the respondents feel that the occupation of the petitioners is objectionable, they shall issue notice to the petitioners and given them an opportunity of putting forth their case. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to follow due process of law if they intend to dispossess the petitioners from the above-mentioned lands. The petitioners are also permitted to avail legal remedies before the common law Court if they seek to assert their right over the above-mentioned lands. Subject to the above direction to the respondents and the liberty given to the petitioners as above, the

¶12

Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶13

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.38716, 38742, 40052 and 40254 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 26^th November, 2013 DR

Smt. Mandalapu Saraladevi, v. The Special Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mandalapu Saraladevi, v. The Special Deputy 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

Kallepally Venkatesham Vs The District Collector

Mohd. Waheeduddin Vs The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare

Subhash Mandal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mothukula Saramma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Mir Arjumand Ali Khan Vs The Ap State Wakf Board, Rep by its Executive Officer

Jadi Mallaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh