Dismissed

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Telangana HC17 Jul 2017WP/18220/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of respondents regarding grant of possession of 17.68 cents of land. The court held that since patta proceedings for the balance land are pending and an alternative remedy exists, the writ petition is closed with no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; no relief granted as pendency of patta proceedings and alternative remedy make relief undesirable.

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18220 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam filed the present writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents in handing over the land of an extent of Ac.17.68 cents of dry land situated in Survey No.23/3D2 of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to it.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that the land of an extent of Ac.383.70 cents situated in Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, belongs to the petitioner. The said village was declared as ‘not an Inam Estate’ under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam by order dated 02.11.1978, under Section 3(3) of the A.P.Inams Abolition Act, 1956 held that the lands covered by T.D.No.1191 are inam lands in an Inam village belonging to Simhachalam Devasthanam, the petitioner. However, ryotwari patta was granted under Section 7(1) of the Inams Abolition Act to an extent of Ac.383.70 cents including the land of an extent of Ac.7.75 cents covered by Survey No.24. In fact, Survey No.24 is of an extent of Ac.52.56 cents and in view of the same, the remaining extent of Ac.44.81 cents is yet to be considered for grant of ryotwari patta.

¶5

While so, on the declaration filed by one P.Venkateswara Rao, in C.C.No.106 of 1975, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by an order dated 23.05.1979, held that the land of an extent of Ac.17.68 cents dry land in Survey No.24/3D2 of Cheemalapalli village stood reverted to the petitioner. But in the present counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, it is stated that no said survey number exists. It is also stated that Survey No.24 was sub-divided into two survey numbers, i.e., Survey Nos.24/1 and 24/2. In respect of land of an extent of Ac.7.75 cents covered by Survey No.24/1, a patta was already granted on 06.09.1996.

¶6

¶7

Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the patta proceedings with regard to balance extent of land are pending before the competent authority.

¶8

In view of the pendency of those proceedings, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition and the earlier proceedings were passed in exercise of powers conferred in Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. It does not preclude the petitioner from filing the application under the provisions of A.P.Estate Abolition Act. In view of the availability of alternative remedy under the provisions of A.P.Andhra Area (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, and also in view of the averment made in the counter affidavit of the third respondent with regard to non-existence of land in Survey No.24/3D2, the writ petition is closed

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly closed. Consequently, miscellaneous

¶10

petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶11

__________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 17.07.2017 pln

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

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

Anumala Jayamma, Vs Allam Krishnavenamma

Habeeb Ahmed Shareef Vs Smt. Chitra Ramchandran

J.Sarada Govardhini Vs The Special officer, and Competent Authority

The Mandal Revenue Officer Vs The Estate Abolition Tribunal-Cum-District Judge

Dandugula Venka Vs The Joint Collector

Mandal Revenue Officer., Vs The Estate Abolition Tribunal-cum-District Judge