Dismissed

Christian Medical Centre, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Jan 2016WP/346/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice demanding title documents. The court held that the notice did not attempt to adjudicate title, denied the petition, but directed the petitioner to produce documents and file a representation, warning authorities against interference without due process.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to produce documents and file detailed representation; authorities restrained from interfering or dispossessing petitioner without due process.

Christian Medical Centre, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.346 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner questions the notice dated 12.11.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Pithapuram Mandal, Pithapuram, the 5^th respondent, primarily on the ground that the 5^th respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the title of the petitioner. The averments in the affidavit show that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property over hundred years and the land is partly purchased by him and partly under long lease from 1904 to 1928. Further the lessor is stated to have filed a suit for eviction which is pending. While so, the petitioner is stated to have constructed

¶6

18 buildings for Hospitals, Hostels, Residential quarters etc.

¶7

A reading of the impugned notice, however, does not show that there is any attempt to adjudicate upon the title of the petitioner and on contrary, it shows that the Government has obtained survey report on 03.11.2015 and in order to verify the land belonging to the petitioner, he seeks title documents of the petitioner with respect to the land in Survey Nos.162 and 161 admeasuring Acs.17.37 cents and Acs.8.24 cents at Agraharam Village, Pithapuram Mandal. The production of the documents as called upon in the notice cannot be said to affect the civil rights of the petitioner.

¶8

Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. However, the petitioner shall produce the documents which he wishes to produce in response to the notice and is also at liberty to file a detailed

¶9

representation setting out his claim in the said land. However, it is to be noted that if any action is intended to be taken against the petitioner by the respondents, the same shall precede the due process of law and they shall not highhandedly interfere or dispossess the petitioner or otherwise interfere with any of petitioner’s land in any manner.

¶10

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶13

06.01.2016 KH

Christian Medical Centre, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Christian Medical Centre, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

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

Thota Ramaiah Vs The Tahsildar

Shaik Mahabub Subhani Vs The State of Telangana

V.Kedharnath Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Sri Kotha Laxmana Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

Pasala Vara Prasada Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Subhash Reddy, Vs The Tahsildar