Disposed

Medari Kotamma, v. The State of Telangana rep by

Telangana HC26 Jun 2015WP/17904/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition filed by landless Scheduled Caste people challenging an auction notification. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to conduct the auction process after the petitioners clarified their possession extent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to respondents to complete the auction process initiated by notification dated 09.06.2015.

Medari Kotamma, Vs The State of Telangana rep by — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17904 of 2015

¶3

Dated : 26.06.2015

¶4

Between: Medari Kotamma W/o.Medari Veeraiah, Aged 48 yrs, Srinivasapuram Village, Huzurnagar Mandalam, Nalgonda District & another .. Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep., by the Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others .. Respondents

¶5

This Court made the following :

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.17904 of 2015

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

The petitioners and 22 others are the poor landless schedule caste people who are residents of Srinivasapuram Village, Nalgonda District. They contend that they took the lands on lease to an extent of Ac.46.00 in Sy.No.527/1 of the said village, in the year 1989 which is dry and poromboke in nature. They have developed the lands by spending huge amounts and now eking out their living by cultivating the said lands. When their possession was sought to be disturbed by the respondents, the petitioners complained to the Commissioner of Endowments, as well as National Commission for Scheduled Castes. On their complaint, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes issued orders on 01.12.2011 directing the 1^st respondent to identify the alternate lands in the same village or nearby villages, so that the 23 families can be allotted the lands on lease basis. It is further directed that they should also be given another opportunity to appear for auction after two years. Alleging non-compliance of the said directions, and proceeding to conduct auction vide notification dated 09.06.2015, this writ petition is filed.

¶10

2. Learned Standing Counsel representing the 5^th respondent submits that the auction notification indicates only Ac.24.00. Whereas, the total extent owned by the temple is Ac.50.00 of which Ac.47.00 is cultivable lands and the petitioners are in possession of only Ac.23.00. When the petitioners are in possession of only Ac.23.00 and not in possession of remaining extent of land belonging to the temple, they cannot obstruct from holding auction and what is proposed to be auctioned is only the remaining extent i.e., Ac.24.00 of land.

¶11

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are in possession of only Ac.23.00 and as long as their possession is not disturbed, the petitioners have no objection in conducting the auction as proposed by notification dated 09.06.2015.

¶12

4. Having regard to the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to complete the auction process as initiated by way of auction notification dated 09.06.2015. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶14

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶15

26^th June, 2015

¶16

Rds

Medari Kotamma, v. The State of Telangana rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medari Kotamma, v. The State of Telangana rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Dhananjaya Naidu Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Tatikonda Brahma Lingaswamy, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Sri M. Rajaiah Gupta Vs The Commissioner

Vempada Adinarayana, Vs Sri P. Venkat Rami Reddy, IAS

K. Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Kothapalli Satyavathi, W/o. Venkata Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.