Disposed

Madasu RavindraBabu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Jul 2014WP/6871/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment held that petitioners in continuous possession of land cannot be physically dispossessed without issuing appropriate notice and providing an opportunity to show cause. The court directed the respondents to follow due procedure before recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners shall not be physically dispossessed; respondents directed to issue notice for show cause and pass orders after hearing.

Madasu RavindraBabu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 6871 of 2014

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Madasu Ravindra Babu and others

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Heard.

¶15

2. On 03.07.2014, respondent No.4 was directed to be present before this court as the order dated 17.06.2014 was not complied with and the factual report, as sought for, was not filed. Though no affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.4 showing the cause, learned government pleader submits that respondent No.4 had already sent a report dated 28.06.2014 to the office of the learned government pleader, but the same could not be placed before the court on 03.07.2014. Since the mistake appears to be in the office of the learned government pleader, all further action proposed

¶16

against respondent No.4 is dropped.

¶17

3. Petitioners state that they are in possession of various extents of land viz., Ac.1-16 cents in Survey No.241/1 of Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. The action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them without following due procedure under law and principles of natural justice, is unconstitutional. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been granted original D.K.T.Pattas and that they are making representations for recognizing their possession and for issuance of regular D.K.T. Pattas with respect to the land in possession of each one of them. Petitioners also state that they are in possession for over 35 years and their names are recorded in the revenue records. It is also stated that in 1981, an eviction notice was given to them, but thereafter no orders were passed and the petitioners continue to be in possession.

¶18

4. On 17.06.2014, when this writ petition was heard initially and after considering the instructions of the government pleader, the following order was passed:

¶19

“ T h e instructions received by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue show that the land to an extent of Acs.20.40 cents in Sy.No.241 of Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, is classified as ‘Kunta Poramboke’. It appears that the proposal sent by the Collector for change of classification from ‘Kunta Poramboke’ to ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ is stated to be pending with the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.

¶20

Petitioners claim that a provisional assignment was made in their favour vide proceedings of the Tahsildar, Ongole, in Rc.No.30/1978-CC dated 10.01.1979 and they claim to be in possession since then and that their names are also reflected in the adangals, copies of which are produced along with the land revenue receipts as additional material papers.

¶21

The further instructions of learned Government Pleader for Revenue show that except one Shamshad Begum, as per the records of the Government, no other person is in occupation of any part of the land.

¶22

The documents produced by the petitioners show that they were put in provisional assignment of the said land and as per the revenue records, it appears that their possession is recorded. The Tahsildar-respondent No.4 shall, therefore, verify the status of land on ground as well as in the revenue records and file a factual report before this Court on or before 30.06.2014.

¶23

List on 30.06.2014 in motion list. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners with respect to the land claimed by them.”

¶24

5. The report now filed by respondent No.4 also reiterates the said factual position and it is stated that the names of the petitioners are found in the adangals and the remarks column as encroachers and the provisional assignment given in the year 1979 to the petitioners was only valid for one year. In view of that the petitioners are deemed to be evicted from the Government land. However, the concept of deemed eviction is something, which cannot be accepted as a person in possession continues, as such, till evicted. Even an encroacher is entitled to a notice and following of due procedure under law for seeking eviction.

¶25

6. In view of that, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents and, in particular, respondent No.4 to issue appropriate notice if he seeks to recover the possession from the petitioners and give opportunity to them to show cause and then pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. Till the procedure, as aforesaid, is followed, petitioners shall not be physically dispossessed from the lands in their respective occupations. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

July 18, 2014 LMV

Madasu RavindraBabu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madasu RavindraBabu v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Zakir Hussain, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tatavarthi Pullaiah Vs Mr. Neelisetti NArasimha Rao

J.Bala Naveena, aged about 30 years, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kandrathi Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Syed Khader Mohiuddin S/o Syed Mohammed Hussain Vs The Govt of a.P.Minority Welfare Department

M. Muralidhara Rao, Vs Government of Telangana