If the respondents, without issuing any prior statutory notice in writing to the petitioner, takes any action against him by way of eviction / dispossession from the land in question resulting in any damage or loss to the petitioner or his property, the petitioner shall be entitled to proceed against the individual officers in their personal capacity seeking damages to the property and prosecute them for trespass into the lands.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM            

W.P. No.282 of 2011

19-02-2015

Mantena Kishore Babu.petitioner
                               
The District Collector and two others. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar

Counsel  for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:  G.P. for Revenue

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM          

W.P.No. 282 of 2011

DATE: 19.02.2015

O R D E R:-

        The sum and substance of the petitioners case as
reflected from the affidavit is that the petitioner is possession
and enjoyment of agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.4.46
cents in R.S.No. 112/3 and Ac.4.88 cents in R.S.No. 112/4
situated in Kamayyapalem village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West
Godavari District having acquired the same from his late
father  Sri Ranga Vara Prasad Satyanarayana Raju by way of
succession and the Special Deputy Collector, by order dated
10.05.1996, declared possession of the lands in favour of the
petitioner and that orders have become final as no appeal has
been preferred against such orders.  Now, the petitioners
grievance is that the 3rd respondent, on 10.01.2011, without
passing any statutory orders, tried to evict the petitioner from
the lands in question stating that the land belongs to the
Government.  Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking
appropriate directions.
        The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in every agricultural season, the respondents, without
any authority, are threatening the petitioner orally to vacate
the schedule lands.
        Having regard to the specific submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that even though orders
dated 10.05.1996 have been passed by the Special Deputy
Collector declaring the lands as belonging to the petitioner
and such orders having become final, the 3rd respondent,
without issuing any statutory notice or having any statutory
authority, is taking steps to evict the petitioner from the lands
in question particularly in every agricultural season, and in
view of the fact that no counter affidavit is forthcoming
contradicting the pleadings, this Court is inclined to dispose of
the writ petition with the following observation:
If the respondents, without issuing any prior statutory notice in
writing to the petitioner, takes any action against him by way of
eviction / dispossession from the land in question resulting in any
damage or loss to the petitioner or his property, the petitioner
shall be entitled to proceed against the individual officers in their
personal capacity seeking damages to the property and prosecute
them for trespass into the lands.

     With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed
of.  No order as to costs.
        As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition,
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of
as infructuous.
______________________  
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J      
19.02.2015 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.