High Court for State of TelanganaWP/233/2006disposed of no costs

Tirumalakonda Krishna, v. The Agent To Govt/ Dist Collector,

2016-02-16A Ramalingeswara Rao2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.233 of 2006 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for fourth respondent.

2. The petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.1-18 guntas in Sy.No.126/1, situated at Bhaskarapuram, H/o.Pentlam Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam District. The said land, which was a Government land, was occupied by his father in the year 1969. After the death of his father, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the said land. The Government issued B-memo and the petitioner was paying the land revenue to the said land. The fourth respondent, who was given patta in the year 1988 in respect of an extent of land admeasuring Ac.1-22 guntas in the same survey number, 126/1, alleged interference by the petitioner, and in those circumstances, the second respondent prepared a panchanama on 05.11.2004 handing over the land to the fourth respondent on the basis of patta dated 19.01.1988. Challenging the said panchanama, the present writ petition was filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sy.No.126 is in an extent of Acs.90-00 guntas of land and the fourth respondent sold away his patta land long back, and in view of the same, the recording of panchanama on 05.11.2004 is illegal.

4. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, on the other hand, submits that the fourth respondent continued to be in possession of the land since the year of patta in 1988 and when there was interference by the petitioner, the

panchanama was conducted. He further submits that by virtue of the status-quo order granted in this writ petition, there is no interference from the petitioner.

5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that in view of the status-quo order granted by this Court on 04.01.2006, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition.

6. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 16.02.2016 TJMR