Manda Babu Rao, v. The Dist. Collector, Warangal Dist. And 2 ORS,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD W.P.NO.2678 OF 2006 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.E3/6805/2005 dated 9-1-2006 and declare D.P.No.53/2004 of KUDA, Warangal as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the A.P. (Telanga Area) Abolition of Inams Act,1955 by issuing Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.19 guntas in Sy.No.516 of Urus Village, Warangal Mandal and District. 2.

Heard Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana State). Since the matter pertains to the year 2006, this Court constrained to proceed with the case and dispose of the same on merits.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Schedule Caste community and landless poor. He claimed Ac.5.19 guntas of land in Sy.No.516 of Urus Village, Warangal Mandal and District on the ground that his father was in possession and owned the said land by virtue of inam given by the Jagirdar. After the death of his father in the year 2004, when the respondents took steps to evict the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25196 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by order dated 5-09-2005, directing the petitioner to file an application, if not already filed, by enclosing the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, the District Collector, Warangal caused an enquiry and framed issue No.1 about the possession of the petitioner and issue No.2

about assignment of the above land and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of assignment and accordingly passed orders in proceedings No.E3/6805/05, dated 9-1-2006.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the first respondent passed the order after due enquiry and recorded reasons in refusing the claim of the petitioner. I see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

_______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J Date: 08-06-2018 Shr