Smt. Ratnamma v. Gyaneshwar, 55 years
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Jun 2005
- Bench
- ELIPE DHARMA RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, Uppal, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to…
Judgment
Smt. Ratnamma, W/o. V. Gyaneshwar, 55 years, R/o. 1-9-18/A/3/2, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. AND ...PETITIONER
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Operative part
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, Uppal, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with peaceful possession of plot No.85 part, 86, 87 & 88 part H.No.4-115/2/A admeasuring about 600 Sq. Yards situated in Survey No.42, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the admission stage made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.13393 of 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration of the action of the respondents in interfering with her peaceful possession of Plot Nos.85 part, 86, 87 and 88 part, H.No.4-115/2/A admeasuring about 600 square yards situated in Survey Nos.42 and 43, Ramnthapur, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the above mentioned plot under registered sale deed dated 07.09.1992 and the petitioner’s husband is running business in the name of Shiva Shankar Auto Body Building in the said premises with valid license and electricity connection vide consumer No.10621. The respondents are threatening them to vacate the premises without any notice and authority. On that, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner without following due process of law. No costs. ____________________ (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J) 23rd June 2005 Note: CC in three days B/O RRB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER Copy To:
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, Uppal, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Jun 2005. The bench was ELIPE DHARMA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.