Dismissed

Jagannadham Devadasu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Oct 2018WP/31613/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that respondents could not deny the benefit of alternate land allotment assured previously and implemented for similarly situated persons. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to allot land within four months. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to allot alternate land as assured vide proceedings dated 27.03.1989 within four months.

Jagannadham Devadasu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31613 OF 2018

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The case of the petitioners is that their lands were resumed vide proceedings dated 27.03.1989 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Santanuthalapadu, and petitioners were also assured that they will be granted alternate land. But, as on today, no alternate lands were allotted to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same present writ petition is filed.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the lands of similarly placed persons were resumed, they filed Writ Petition No.27243 of 2012 and this Court disposed of the same directing the respondents to take action as promised in the proceedings dated 27.03.1989, within a period of two months.

¶5

It is stated that the same is being implemented which is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. She also states basing on the written instructions that now the assignment committee is not having sittings, as such, there is delay in allotting land to the petitioner; and that as and when assignment committee sits, action will be taken for granting DKT pattas to the petitioners in Survey No.542 of Mynampadu Village as assured by them vide proceedings dated 27.03.1989.

¶6

¶7

It is to be seen that when once the respondents have assured the petitioner for allotment of alternate land vide proceedings dated 27.03.1989, and when the same is implemented in case of similarly situated persons after writ petitions are filed, now the respondents cannot deny the same benefit to the petitioners.

¶8

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take action as promised vide proceedings dated 27.03.1989, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶9

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶10

pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 23.10.2018 t k.

Jagannadham Devadasu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannadham Devadasu, v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saila Narsa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kuchimanchi Seethayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchiraju Kasinath Vs State of Telangana

M.a.Razak Vs State of Telangana

Mirza Mujahid Baig, Vs The State of Telangana

V. Purnachandra Rao Vs The State of Telangana