High Court for State of TelanganaWP/11297/2005closed no costs

G. Ratna Kumari v. The District Collector,

2015-02-13A Ramalingeswara Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11297 of 2005 Between:

1. G. Ratna Kumari and others.

PETITIONERS AND

1. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, and others.

RESPONDENTS

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in threatening to evict the petitioners from their houses constructed in Plot Nos.1950, 1965, 1967, 1306, 1966 and 1305 respectively granted to them by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.B2/10431/85, dated 30.11.1989, in Sy.No.710/1, Kapra Village, Keesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal.

This Court by order dated 17.05.2005 directed respondents 3 and 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from their house site plots bearing Nos.1965, 1967, 1306, 1966 and 1305 respectively, granted to them by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.B2/10431/85, dated 30.11.1989, until further orders, and the said orders are still subsisting. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting issuance of pattas by the 2nd respondent on 30.11.1989. It is also admitted that one K. Prem Kumar, submitted original house site pattas to the 3rd respondent for verification in the year 1996 and those pattas were not returned. The petitioners requested the 3rd respondent for issuance of duplicate house site pattas but the said request was not available in the office records.

The other allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition were denied. However, in para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the 3rd respondent never took any steps to evict the petitioners from the said land. It was also stated that the petitioners continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

In view of the above submissions made in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no further orders are necessary as there is no threat for their possession.

Recording the submission made by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit and in view of the continuance of possession by the petitioners by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court on 17.05.2005, this writ petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.

13th February, 2015 Js.