Gali Mariyamma W/O.Ramanaiah v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.25160 of 2015 BETWEEN Gali Mariyamma and others.

... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.08.2015 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:

Petitioners allege to be assignees of various extents of land viz. first petitioner's husband was assigned an extent of Ac.0.67 cents in Sy.No.348/B/12 and Ac.0.86 cents of land in Sy.No.348/B/13; second petitioner's husband was assigned an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.348/B/11; third petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.348/B/10; fourth petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.348/B/10 and fifth petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in Sy.No.348/B/7.

2. Petitioners state that they have been in possession of the said lands over the years since 1978 onwards and alleging that the respondents are trying to interfere with and dispossess them, while carrying out the work of Neeru Chettu Programme, the present writ petition came to be filed alleging that due process of law is not being followed by the respondents.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has received instructions from the fourth respondent that though the Government is conducting Neeru Chettu Programme, there has been no interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioners in the above survey numbers and it is stated that the land in the said survey numbers is noted as 'Doted Land'.

Learned Government Pleader, however, states that at present there is no interference by the official respondents and if at all any action is required to be taken against the petitioner, the respondents will follow due process of law.

Recording the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 25, 2015 DSK