the act of seizing the bore well of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Section 15 the Act.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM          

WRIT PETITION No.6182 OF 2015  

11-03-2015

Gurram Kistaiah..Petitioner

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary and 4 others...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:Smt M.Bhagyasri

Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: GP for Revenue

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred?:AIR 29\005 Andhra Pradesh 181

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM          
WRIT PETITION No.6182 OF 2015  

ORDER:
       
      Challenging the notice dated 04.02.2015, issued by the  4th
respondent-Tahsildar, alleging violations of the provisions  of the
A.P Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, the Act), the
present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th
respondent issued the impugned notice to the petitioner and on
the same day seized the bore well of the petitioner and there is a
standing crop in the land of the petitioner.  The petitioner is an
illiterate man and the act of seizing the bore well of the petitioner is
in violation of the provisions of Section 15 the Act.  Learned
counsel also cites a judgment reported in P. Narayana Reddy v.
Mandal Revenue Officer and others .
      The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on
the other hand, submits that  the impugned notice issued by the
4th respondent is a only a show cause notice and he might have
passed an order and seeks time to file counter.
      The requirement of compliance of the opportunity of
submitting objections and explanation and giving opportunity of
hearing needs no emphasis especially when  an adverse action
leading to civil consequences are the result of action of the
respondents.  There is no reason for disbelieving the petitioners
affidavit with respect to the averments that the petitioners bore
well has been seized on the same day.  If the petitioners bore well
has not been seized on the same day virtually there is no
requirement of an illiterate man approaching this Court by
invoking the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent not to
interfere with the bore well of the petitioner without giving  an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and passing
an order after considering the same in accordance with law.  While
passing orders, the 4th respondent may also take into
consideration of the compromise which has been effected by the
village elders between the petitioner and the 5th respondent who is
the complainant.   No order as to costs.
      Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed.

____________________________    
CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J      
Date:11.03.2015.

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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.