Dr.Peethala Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V V S RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
Therefore the writ petition is disposed of, observing that the Revenue
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.68 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 488.88 Sq.yards in plot No.51 comprised in S.No.74/6 of East Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, under registered sale deed dated 24.8.1994, from (BCHS). On an M/s.Balamrai Cooperative Housing Society application made by BCHS, it appears, the Government vide order dated 18.5.1985 exempted the land from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. BCHS obtained layout approval from Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) and allotted plots to its members. The petitioner paid necessary amounts that are payable to SCB. Petitioner commenced construction. The third respondent allegedly acting under instructions of second respondent came to petitioner’s site and interfered in construction activity. The petitioner, therefore, instituted O.S.No.76 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The suit was decreed and the defendant preferred appeal. When the State filed O.S.No.595 of 2007, petitioner filed W.P.No.18948 of 2007 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition, directed transfer of O.S.No.595 of 2007 to the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982. Defendant therein preferred appeal, which is pending. When third respondent interfered with construction of some other buildings, owners of those buildings filed writ petitions and this Court disposed of them holding that the construction shall be subject to result of the case pending before Special Court. Again, the third respondent is interfering with construction. Therefore the instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus for declaration and direction. The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) brought to the notice of this Court that the Government filed L.G.C. No.167 of 1997 before the Special Court and that the same was dismissed.
Operative part
He also submits that the Government is contemplated to file writ petition and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any construction. The submission of the Assistant Government Pleader cannot be sustained. When the L.G.C. is dismissed, it leads to the conclusion that the Government failed to prove its title over the land and that the petitioner or similarly situated persons, who purchased the house sites from BCHS can be treated as land grabbers. If the petitioner had already obtained building permission from the SCB, such construction cannot be treated as illegal. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of, observing that the Revenue authorities cannot interfere with the right of the petitioner to enjoy the property. If the petitioner has not obtained necessary permission under Section 185 of Cantonments Act, 2006, liberty is given to petitioner to do so. If the petitioner has not obtained any building permission from SCB, it is always open to appropriate authority to take necessary action against such illegal construction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. August 19, 2010 YS ________________
(V.V.S. RAO, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore the writ petition is disposed of, observing that the Revenue
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982; Cantonments Act, 2006 — s. 185.
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.