Gudupalli Chandrakantha, Hyd. v. Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC31 Jul 2018WP/6505/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held it could not decide whether the Government encroached on the petitioner's property without appropriate civil proceedings. Consequently, liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail legal remedies as per law regarding the alleged encroachment, and the writ petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail remedies available in law regarding alleged encroachment; writ petition closed.

Gudupalli Chandrakantha, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.6505 of 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

In this Writ Petition, petitioner alleges that she is the owner and possessor of open land admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Survey Nos.450, 459, 460, 557/B, 558/A, 559/A, 565/A, 558/A and 559/A of KGR Enclave, situated at Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, at Sangareddy. Her grievance is that the respondent authorities encroached into her land, which was in fact, regularized by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority vide proceedings No.721, dated 23.02.2010.

¶4

Respondent No.3 – Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that on a requisition submitted by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, TSPDCL, Patancheru, Medak District, land to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.462 situated at Ameenpur Village came to be allotted in favour of TSPDCL for construction of 33/11 K.V. Sub-Station and that as a matter of fact, after getting the land surveyed by the Surveyor, the said land was

¶5

CKR, J W.P.No.6505 of 2015

¶6

¶7

handed over to TSPDCL on 10.11.2014 under a cover of panchanama.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was given to the petitioner before conducting survey and allotting the said land in favour of TSPDCL.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that a detailed survey was conducted with respect to the claim of the petitioner and the survey report reveals that the land of the petitioner is adjacent to the land of the Government.

¶10

It is to be noted that admittedly, there is a Sub-Station existing on the land allotted to TSPDCL.

¶11

Having considered the respective submissions and having perused the material on record, including respective survey maps and a copy of the layout, it is not possible for this Court to come

¶12

to the conclusion whether the Government has encroached into the land of the petitioner or not as the same can only be determined in appropriate civil proceedings.

¶13

In those circumstances, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available to her in law with respect to the

¶14

CKR, J W.P.No.6505 of 2015

¶15

¶16

alleged encroachment of the respondents, this Writ Petition is closed.

¶17

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

¶20

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 31^st JULY, 2018.

¶21

kvni

Gudupalli Chandrakantha, Hyd. v. Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudupalli Chandrakantha, Hyd. v. Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 2 Ors.

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

Nallamailli Gopalakrishna Reddy Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Koneru Siva Rama Krishna Rao Vs The Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Thandra Krishnamma Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments

Cooperative Industries Estates, Vs The Commissioner of Industries

Grandhi Ramulamma Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Jadhav Sevantha Bai, Utnoor (M), Adilabad Dist., and 4 Otrs. Vs Ghmc., Hyderabad, and 7 Otrs.