Disposed

Basavannagari Krishna, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal

Telangana HC7 Nov 2013WP/31776/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding alleged unlawful interference with land possession, the court observed that while the government issued a notice and eviction order under the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioner had not received them. Consequently, the court declined to grant the mandated relief but directed the government to supply copies, thereby disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without granting the mandamus sought, but with a direction to the respondents to supply copies of the proceedings to the petitioner.

Basavannagari Krishna, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31776 of 2013 Date:07.11.2013

¶2

Between:

¶3

Basavannagari Krishna, S/o Mallaiah

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And The Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and two others.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Venkata Mayur

¶8

Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of land admeasuring Acs.3.04 guntas in Survey No.140 of Mancherial Village and Mandal, Adilabad District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area), on instructions, submitted that as the petitioner is admittedly in possession of Government land, a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to him on 15.10.2013 and that an order of eviction was passed under Section 6 of the Act on 26.10.2013.

¶13

Sri V.Venkata Mayur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that so far, his client has not

¶14

received the said proceedings.

¶15

In the light of the above noted submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader as noted hereinbefore, the relief claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. However, if and when the petitioner approaches respondent No.3, the latter shall supply the copies of the above-mentioned proceedings to enable the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy if he feels aggrieved by the said proceedings.

¶16

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

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.39487 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 07^th November 2013 Note: Issue CC in three days. B/o DR

Basavannagari Krishna, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavannagari Krishna, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal

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

S.R.P.M. Mazdoor Sangh, Vs Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

A. Lakshmi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Valluri Srilakshmi Vs The State of A.P.

Doddi Satyakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Hafiz Meerja Mohammed Bai, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Syed Khaja, Vs A.P. State Wakf Board