Dismissed

Bandi Shanker s/o Rajaiah v. The Government of Telangana State

Telangana HC2 Jul 2014WP/16504/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a land resumption order after finding the land had already been allotted to a university. It directed petitioners to approach the Revenue Secretary for alternative relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for compensation or alternate land; proceedings closed.

Bandi Shanker s/o Rajaiah Vs The Government of… — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.16504 of 2014

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Bandi Shanker and two others.

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Telangana State, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG)

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Heard.

¶17

2. Three petitioners, who have jointly filed this writ petition,

¶18

seek to question the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 19.03.2008 bearing No.B/21/2007. Petitioners state that each one of them purchased small

¶19

extents of land from one V. Gangaram of Korutla village. Affidavit of the petitioners’ state that the first petitioner purchased 500 sq. yards in Sy.No.1308/1 under registered sale deed bearing document No.190/94 dated 08.03.1994; second petitioner similarly purchased 420 sq. yards in Sy.No.1308 vide document No.1615/93 dated 13.10.1993 and the third petitioner purchased another extent of 420 sq. yards under document No.1616/93 dated 13.10.1993. Petitioners claim that they have been in possession and enjoyment of said property since then. It is also stated that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to their vendor.

¶20

3. Petitioners allege that when the revenue authorities interfered with their possession, they came to know about the aforesaid order passed by the Tahsildar and that, thereafter, they have applied for the said proceedings under the Right to Information Act and obtained the impugned proceedings dated 19.03.2008 whereunder the Tahsildar had cancelled the assignment made in favour of 46 assignees on the ground of violation of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The said proceedings state that Ac.14.31 guntas in Sy.No.1308 was assigned to 46 assignees, which include the vendor of the petitioners i.e. V. Gangaram, who is shown at Sl.No.2 in the list of assignees and the said assignments were cancelled and a panchanama dated 29.03.2008 shows that possession was taken over the said entire extent.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the vendor of the petitioners nor the petitioners were aware of any such proceedings canceling the assignment. Learned counsel further states that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers, who have paid valuable consideration and they have been in possession and enjoyment and have purchased the land on the basis of pattadar passbooks and title deeds held by their vendor. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, fairly states that the said land, which was resumed, is now allotted and handed over to Sri Venktaeswara Veterinary University, Korutla, Karimnagar District and in part of the said

¶22

land, certain building have also come up. In view of the said subsequent events, learned counsel states that the petitioners alternatively request that they may either be paid compensation in lieu of the land, which they have lost or their case may be considered for assignment of alternate sites. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at least to the extent of alternate relief sought for, the petitioners may be permitted to approach the second respondent.

¶23

5. Keeping in view that the resumption orders were passed as far back as on 19.03.2008 and that the land has already been resumed and allotted by the Government, as aforesaid, the relief sought for by the petitioners, to the extent of the impugned resumption order,

¶24

really does not survive for consideration. However, keeping in view the alternate request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶25

1. Petitioners are permitted to make appropriate application before the second respondent either seeking compensation or seeking alternate land towards assignment, keeping in view, the facts and circumstances under which the petitioners purchased the small extents of land, as noted above.

¶26

2. If such an application is filed before the second respondent, he shall consider the same in the light of all the attending circumstances and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶27

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶29

July 2, 2014 DSK

Bandi Shanker s/o Rajaiah v. The Government of Telangana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandi Shanker s/o Rajaiah v. The Government of Telangana State

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

Penta Reddy Bal Reddy, aged about 69 years, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by

M/s. Radha Realty Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Komarraju Rajeshwar Rao Vs Government of Telangana

Captain Ikram a.Kaleem Vs State of Telangana, Represented through its Secretary

Smt. a. Chandrakala, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jyothi Samabhavana Sangam Vs The Government of Telangana