Remanded

Singampalli Santoshi v. The District Collector

Telangana HC6 Jan 2016WP/10147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the third respondent's threat to dispossess the petitioner from her long-standing housed without due process. The court, relying on an interim order from April 2012, directed the third respondent not to proceed with dispossession without adhering to due legal procedures.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the thatched house without following due process of law.

Singampalli Santoshi Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 10147 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Revenue. With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is heard at the admission stage.

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the thatched house admeasuring 60 square yards situated in Sy.No.277/P of Saradanagar, Ward No.71, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶6

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would show that the petitioner, who is a poor labour, migrated to Visakhapatnam from Orissa and started living in a thatched house admeasuring 60 square yards situated in Sy.No.277/P of Saradanagar, Ward No.71, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam since last ten years. While things stood thus, the third respondent is said to have threatened the petitioner to remove the thatched house as the said land is a government land. Questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law, the present writ petition is filed.

¶7

By an order, dated 11.04.2012 this Court directed the third respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the house in question, without following due process of

¶8

law. In view of the interim orders passed, the petitioner is continued to be in possession of the said house.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor lady and if she is thrown out without following due process of law, she will be put to lot of harassment. On the other hand, the Government Pleader for Revenue submits that any action by the authorities would only be in accordance with law.

¶10

Without going into the merits of the case and taking into consideration the interim order dated 11.04.2012, the third respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the thatched house admeasuring 60 square yards situated in Sy.No.277/P of Saradanagar, Ward No.71, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam, without following the due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶13

06.01.2016 gkv

Singampalli Santoshi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singampalli Santoshi 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

S. Sivarama Prasad, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kinnagi Donnu Vs The Tahsildar

J. Ram Reddy, Vs The Tahsildar

Kopally Sai Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Putta Kasi Viswanadham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bethu Thirupathi Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana