Disposed

Maloth Tarachand, S/o Maloth Bhavosingh v. The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Jan 2013WP/38156/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging arbitrary disposal attempts, the single judge held that since the petitioner was put on notice and afforded a hearing opportunity, disposal should wait for his reply before any further dispossession action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be permitted to submit reply within three weeks before dispossession can proceed.

Maloth Tarachand, S/o Maloth… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38156 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from land admeasuring Ac.4.20 gts, Ac.3.00 gts and Ac.0.09 gts in Sy. Nos.4/5, 4/4 and 3/3 respectively situated at Rangapuram Village, Paloncha Mandal of Khammam District, without issuing any notice and without initiating any proceedings, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

The subject land is situated in an agency area of Khammam District, and the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes category. It is his case that the respondents were seeking to dispossess him from the subject land though he was its rightful owner and his name is reflected in the revenue records.

¶6

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent. It is, however, unnecessary for this Court to refer to the various averments therein, as the 3^rd respondent would deny that his staff had visited or tried to dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands. The 3^rd respondent would assert that, except issuing notice to the petitioner to attend before him for an enquiry, he had not made any attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

¶7

Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the 3^rd respondent is said to have put the petitioner on notice, which fact is admitted by Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. As the petitioner had now been put on notice, and is being afforded an opportunity of being heard, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner till orders are passed after considering his reply to the notice. Ends of justice would be met if the Writ Petition is disposed of

¶8

permitting the petitioner to submit his reply within a period of three weeks from today. The 3^rd respondent shall, thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law. Till orders are passed by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject lands. It is made clear that, in case the petitioner does not file his objections within the aforesaid period of three weeks, it is open to the 3^rd respondent to pass orders and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶9

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶10

Date: 24.01.2013

¶11

MRKR

Maloth Tarachand, S/o Maloth Bhavosingh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maloth Tarachand, S/o Maloth Bhavosingh v. The District 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

Yennamsetti Srinivas, Vs The State of A.P.

B.Yadagiri, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its

Tellam Malleshwari Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

R. Ravichander Reddy Vs The Collector

Nartaki Megaplex a/c dts (Theatre Magnificient) Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Kareemulla, Vs The District Collector