Kouta Venugopala Sastry, v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.P. No.17210 of 2018 ORDER:

Heard Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. The petitioner prays for the following relief: ".....Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting the petitioners to vacate the land in survey.No.581, 582, 583 to an extent of Ac.0.27, 1.37, 2.25 Dhammapeta Villge & Mandal pursuant to the Memo of vide .No.RC.A/1201/2017 dt: 29.12.2017 (received on 06.03.2018)......"

The grievance is substantially against respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The Assistant Government Pleader places on record the written instructions dated 05.06.2018.

The operative portion reads thus:

"On the representation I have issued a notice both the parties (vide ref.4th cited) to attended before the Tahsildar on 04.01.2018 at a 11.00 AM along with required documents. Accordingly both parties are attended on 04.01.2018 and Sri Koutha Venugopala Sastry has produced Sada sale deed stating that his father Sri Koutha Jagannadham was purchased the said land on 31.10.1957 from Sri Pasumarthi Mallaiah, S/o Saravaiah, R/o Dammapeta and since then they are in possession.

On verification of Revenue Records their names was recorded in the pahani 1984-85 in occupant column. After that ROR pass book at Khatha No.303 has been issued in the name Sri Koutha Venugopala Sastry, S/o Jagannadham and his name was recorded as pattadar

and cultivator in the year 1995-96 to till date and they are in possession. The Xerox copies of documents are issued to Smt. Nelluri Suramma.

Further it is to submit that the said Survey numbers are patta land and Dammapeta Revenue Village is non-scheduled area. A copy of the petition, Sada sale deed Agreement, this office memo are submitted for kind perusal."

From the above, it is clear that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of petitioner.

The statement contained in written instructions is accepted and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner, if has grievance against respondent Nos.3 and 4, has to work out remedies before the Court having jurisdiction, on the subject matter of the writ petition.

Writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

_______________ S. V. BHATT, J Dt: 06.06.2018 dv