While so, it is stated that after completion of quarrying operations, the authorities redelivered possession of the lands to all the original land-owners including the 1st petitioners husband and the respondents-authorities also issued Delivery Certificates vide Reference No.D935/90, dated 24.11.1990 to the other land owners, but did not issue Delivery Certificate to the husband of the 1st petitioner


W.P.No.1761 of 2015


Rayavarapu Venkata Lakshmi and another .petitioners
The State of A.P. and three others. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad

Counsel  for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:  Spl. G.P. for Assignment

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2012(6) SCJ 862 or SCALE 2012(9) 142


W.P.No. 1761 of 2015

DATE: 16.02.2015

O R D E R:-

        The petitioners assert that in the year 1976, the
Government, for the purpose of quarrying the stone for
construction / repair of Godavari Barrage in Rajahmundry,
East Govadari District, acquired a total an extent of Ac.29.14
cents of land in various survey numbers including the lands
belonging to the petitioners in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in
R.S.Nos.43/7 and 44/3A by virtue of an Award No.12/1980,
dated 01.05.1980.  While so, it is stated that after completion
of quarrying operations, the authorities redelivered possession
of the lands to all the original land-owners including the
1st petitioners husband and the respondents-authorities also
issued Delivery Certificates vide Reference No.D935/90, dated
24.11.1990 to the other land owners, but did not issue
Delivery Certificate to the husband of the 1st petitioner.  After
demise of the 1st petitioners husband, the petitioners made
representation dated 25.06.2014 requesting the
2nd respondent-District Collector to issue Delivery Certificate.
Now, the petitioners grievance is that even though the
2nd respondent-District Collector forwarded their
representation to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer, vide proceedings dated 16.07.2014, the
3rd respondent has not taken any action thereon so far.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate
     The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
similar circumstances, this Court, by order dated 18.06.1998
in W.P.No. 23867 of 1996, had directed the 3rd respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer to handover possession of the lands
to the petitioners therein within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order.  He further submits
that the petitioners also are similarly situated, but there is a
hostile discrimination on the part of the respondents in not
considering the petitioners request and nor passing similar
orders to that effect.
        On the other hand, Sri D.Prasad, the learned Special
Government Pleader for Assignment has submitted that as per
the instructions dated 14.02.2015 received from the
Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, the petitioners herein had been
paid compensation for the lands acquired from them and
further when they filed O.P.Nos. 13 and 14 of 1982 seeking
enhancement of the compensation, the enhanced  
compensation was also ordered and deposited in their favour.
It is also submitted that as per the written instructions, the
Chief Engineer, Dowleswaram, vide his letter dated
11.09.1989, reported that their Department proposed to
retain certain extents of lands in Sy.Nos.43/7, 44/3A, 43/6B,
67/3A and 74/2 admeasuring Ac.5.85 cents including the
petitioners lands for carrying out balance works, maintenance
works and flood protection works, etc., and accordingly,
retained the petitioners lands, as such, the petitioners
request cannot be considered.
        Having considered the rival submissions and having
perused the order dated 18.06.1998 passed in W.P.No. 23867
of 1996, this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus in
favour of the petitioners based on the order passed by this
Court inasmuch as that order is passed in the facts of the case
and the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent
especially in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in V. Chandrasekharan v. Administrative Officer
holding the view contra to the view expressed by the learned
single judge.  However, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the respondents to take a decision on the
representation dated 25.06.2014 said to have been made by
the petitioners, in accordance with law and communicate the
same to the petitioners within a period of three months from
     With the above direction, 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.


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.