Milaram Janardhar Reddy S/O Krishna Reddy v. Thasildar Chillakuru (Mandal)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.23544 of 2015 BETWEEN Milaram Janardhan Reddy.

... PETITIONER AND Tahsildar, Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and others. ...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

No 3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

2. Petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 288 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.148/2 under registered sale deed dated 19.04.2010. Alleging that he is being dispossessed by the first respondent without issuing any notice and without giving him any opportunity to submit explanation, petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning interference of his civil rights relating to the aforesaid property.

3. Learned Government Pleader has received instructions, which state that Sy.No.148 is subdivided into Sy.Nos.148/1 and 148/2 and that Sy.No.148/2 in an extent of Ac.2.44 cents is classified as Kuntaporamboke and the other survey number is classified as village site. Petitioner has purchased an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.148/2 and has constructed an educational institution on Ac.0.06 cents and is stated to have encroached land in an extent of Ac.0.08 cents. It is also stated that the petitioner has submitted proposal for alienation of the said land on payment of market value, which is now pending with the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District for appropriate decision. Learned Government Pleader states that respondents will follow due process of law if any action is to be taken against the petitioner.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to give notice to the petitioner and opportunity to submit explanation, if any action is intended to be taken against him.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 17, 2015 DSK