Dismissed

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Nov 2013WP/31229/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a land owner challenging a Government Order that modified land allotments under previously stayed orders. The Court held the petitioner lacked standing as he was not a party to the constitutional litigation contesting the original orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy regarding the taking over of land based on the revised sketch.

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31229 of 2013

¶2

Dated 0 4 th November, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

N.Venkata Ramana Reddy

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.495, Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated 03.09.2013, of respondent No.1.

¶14

I have heard Sri M.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is briefly stated as under:

¶16

On 31.08.2009, the petitioner entered into a registered agreement of sale in favour of one Sri M.Subba Reddy agreeing to sell Ac.1.04 guntas out of Acs.15.37 guntas owned by him and situated in Survey No.452/2 (old No.452/3) of Puppalaguda Village and Gram Panchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner traced his title through the registered sale deed, dated 16.06.1995, held by one Smt.B.Nandu Bhai. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings on 27.09.2007 mutating the name of the said Nandu Bhai in respect of Acs.4.00 out of Acs.15.37 guntas.

¶17

As per the orders of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,

¶18

the then Mandal Revenue Officer handed over the land to an extent of Acs.263.05 guntas in Survey No.452/1 and 454/1 to respondent No.10 without showing the locations of the patta lands in Survey Nos.448, 449, 450/2 and 452/2 in the sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor and counter signed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer on 20.12.2004. Subsequently, the Mandal Surveyor with the approval of the Mandal Revenue Officer has revised the sketch on 25.07.2009 and submitted the same to the Estate Officer, Hyderabad HMDA.

¶19

The Government of A.P., issued G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Assn.V) Department, dated 04.05.2006, directing allotment of Acs.245.00 in various villages of Ranga Reddy District in favour of the Government functionaries, such as, MLAs, MPs, Judges of the A.P.High Court, All India Service Officers etc. The State Government has issued another G.O.Ms.No.422, Revenue (Assn.V) Department, dated 25.03.2008, for the same purpose.

¶20

A Division Bench of this Court by judgment, dated 05.01.2010, in W.P.Nos.7956 of 2008 and batch quashed G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 25.03.2008, and the aggrieved parties have filed S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.12616 to 12618 of 2010. The Supreme Court has granted leave and an interim order to the limited extent that the allottees/societies who are already in possession of the subject land may develop the land at their own risk and cost and they shall not claim any equities in their favour if ultimately they fail in the appeals. The Supreme Court directed that other conditions imposed by this Court shall continue to be in force.

¶21

On the proposal submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the State Government has issued errata vide impugned GO, wherein it has modified the extents of the lands at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal alienated to various beneficiaries under G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 25.03.2008.

¶22

In the context of the grievance of the petitioner that a part of the land belonging to him is proposed to be handed over to the

¶23

beneficiaries under the two GOs, he has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of G.O.Ms.No.495, dated 03.09.2013. He has pleaded that he has filed objections before respondent No.2 on 20.11.2012, 17.01.2013 and 22.06.2013. The petitioner also made a representation to respondent No.1 on 09.04.2012.

¶24

The main plea on which this GO is questioned is that when the Supreme Court has been seized of the validity of G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 04.05.2006, along with G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 25.03.2008, and an interim order to the limited extent is granted, issuance of the impugned GO modifying G.O.Ms.No.422, 25.03.2008, is wholly impermissible.

¶25

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I do not find any merit in the writ petition whatsoever. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the revised sketch prepared by respondent No.7 and other revenue and survey functionaries, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in order to question the same. The petitioner is in no way connected with the two GOs by which the land was allotted by the State Government to various individuals and societies. He was not a party to the writ petitions filed questioning those GOs nor is he a party before the Supreme Court in the pending SLPs arising out of the Division Bench judgment referred to above.

¶26

As noted hereinbefore, the grievance of the petitioner is confined to inclusion of part of his land in the extents of the lands which were alienated under the above mentioned two GOs on the basis of the revised sketch. The petitioner cannot therefore expand the scope of the dispute between him and the State functionaries by questioning the errata issued to the two GOs only on the ground that issuance of the said two GOs is not permissible in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court and the existence of an interim order. The petitioner being a stranger to the said litigation and totally unconnected with the two GOs, he has neither a right nor locus to question the amendment issued to the two GOs.

¶27

For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if he feels aggrieved by the purported taking over of his land based on the revised sketch for the purpose of alienation to the beneficiaries under the two GOs.

¶28

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38785 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶29

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶30

04^th November, 2013 VGB

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Chava Srirami Reddy Vs The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Rapolu Venugopal Rao, S/o. Venkatarajaiah Vs The State of A.P.

B.Poornachandra Reddy Vs TheDistrict Collector ANDMagistrate

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, Vs State of A.P.

Mukkamalla Venkateshwara Reddy, Vs The District Collector

The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Adilabad Vs The District Collector