Dismissed

Pechetti Krishna Murthy v. The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District

Telangana HC20 Sept 2018WP/13182/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction by respondents without notice or order. The petition was dismissed as nothing survived for adjudication since the petitioner failed to file an explanation to a notice questioning the validity of his patta.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

Pechetti Krishna Murthy Vs The District Collector… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶2

W.P.NO.13182 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed, seeking to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from his land in an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in R.S.Nos.175/1, 176/4. 176/7, 176/8 of Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District by declaring that the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioner from the said land without issuing any notice and without passing any order is without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the D-Form patta holder, which was granted to him way back in the year 1989 in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in R.S.Nos.175/1, 176/4. 176/7, 176/8 of Kopalle Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District and to his surprise, the respondents without issuing any notice, attempted to dispossess him from the said lands.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

This Court granted interim order dated 22.06.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.16487 of 2007, directing the respondents not evict the petitioner as long as the assignment in his favour is in force. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application to vacate interim order, contending that the subject lands are not covered by any patta and the so-called patta claimed by the petitioner is a fake document and therefore, this Court by order dated 28.07.2010 in

¶8

¶9

W.V.M.P.No.2002 of 2008 vacated the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶10

It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject lands and one Danthuluri Koteswara Rao and others are in possession of the said land. However, a notice dated 3.07.2007 was issued to the petitioner and the said notice was served on him questioning the validity of the D-Form patta and that it is a fake document. The petitioner has not chosen to file his explanation

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the

¶12

miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J

¶14

Date: 20-09-2018 Shr

Pechetti Krishna Murthy v. The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pechetti Krishna Murthy v. The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District

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

Zartaj Banu, Hyderbad Vs the Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and 3 Others

Miriyala Subba Rao Vs The District Collector

Rambagh Ramchander Vs The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Dept.

Vepa Suryanarayana Murthy, Vs The District Collector

Jannu Rathnam, Vs The Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records

M/s. Sunder Steels Ltd, Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P.Limited