Hyderabad v. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, R.R. District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: 1 M. Vikrutam S/o. Late M. Sattaiah rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 D. Swaroopa W/o. D. Anand rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 K. Nijarupa S/o. K. Indra Prakash rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Salam Bin Ahmed S/o. Ahmed Bin Shamam rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Mahmood Bin Abdul Rahman S/o. Abdul Rahman rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 6 M. Srisailam S/o. M. Mallaya rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 7 M. Saraswathi W/o. M. Srisailam rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 8 M. Veeru S/o. M. Pentaiah rep. by GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Salam, S/o. Late Salam Bin Ahmed, Aged 49 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.8-2-268/1/16/B/1, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS
AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, R.R. District. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not passing orders on the enquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioners in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-20 gts in Sy.No.23 of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7087 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the fifth respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, R.R.District, in not passing orders on the enquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioners over an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas of land in Survey No.23 of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners assert that the land was utilized for publish purpose without acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The record discloses that the petitioners have approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.21246 of 1994. The matter was discussed fairly at length and through order, dated
Operative part
24.02.2006, this Court directed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to cause enquiry into the claims of the petitioners vis-à-vis the land referred to above. In case the order of this Court was not complied with, it constitutes contempt of Court. A second writ petition for the same relief cannot be maintained. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. There shall be no order as to costs. Dt.15.04.2009 VGB ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
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.