Allowed

Rayalacheruvu Diguvinti Subramanyam Reddy v. The Joint Collector/Settlement Officer

Telangana HC16 Feb 2015WP/11543/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding eviction during pendency of a land revenue appeal, the Single Judge held that since an appeal was pending before the Director of Settlements, the petitioner could not be evicted from the land until finality of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not to be evicted from the land in question till the appeal before the Director of Settlements attains finality.

Rayalacheruvu Diguvinti Subramanyam Reddy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11543 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶5

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(a) of the Estate Abolition Act, before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, requesting for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of Acs.7.54 cents of land in Annasamypally Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. The said petition was allowed on 22.09.1986. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, the 3^rd respondent filed a revision before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, who dismissed the revision by order, dated 26.09.1998. The

¶6

3^rd respondent again preferred another revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad. The Chief Commissioner remanded the matter to the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer for de novo enquiry and disposal as per law and the matter was pending before him. When there was interference by the 3^rd respondent, the present writ petition was filed.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer, Chittoor, after remand, dismissed the petition of the petitioner on 23.11.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Settlements, where the matter is pending as on today.

¶8

No counter is filed by the respondents, even after lapse of 9 years.

¶9

In view of the pendency of the appeal before the Director of Settlements, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd

¶10

respondent cannot evict the petitioner from the land in question.

¶11

Evidently, the enquiry with regard to the right of the petitioner over the land is pending before the Director of Settlements, Hyderabad, and till the matter attains finality, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in question.

¶12

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 16.02.2015

¶14

Rayalacheruvu Diguvinti Subramanyam Reddy v. The Joint Collector/Settlement Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayalacheruvu Diguvinti Subramanyam Reddy v. The Joint Collector/Settlement Officer

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

Chintala Govindu, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Sri T.China Venkata Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary

P.Veerabhadra Swamy Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Swarna Akkamma, Vs The District Collector

Palemm Venkat Rao, Vs The Dist.Collector

P.Dasaratharamaiah, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration