Polimetla Bhagyamma v. Revenue Dept., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
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 to issue a writ Order or Orders more particularly in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents trying to dispossess the Petitioner from her Lands Ac.0-24 cents in R.S.No.96/2 in Allapuram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna Dist. without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law and further direct the Repsondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from her land. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T .V.V.KOT ESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE T he Court made the following Order: T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PET IT ION No.25428 of 2008
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed on mere apprehension without placing before this Court any material in support of such apprehension. The petitioner claims to be in possession of small extent of land admeasuring 0.24 cents in R.S.No.96/2 situated in Allapuram Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. When there was interference by M/s Tiriveedi Kameswari and Tiriveedi Subbarao, she lodged a police complaint in P.S. Gannavaram. It appears that Police called those persons and warned them. Subsequently, the petitioner alleges that fourth respondent along with subordinates is trying to dispossess her without assigning reasons. As already mentioned the writ petition is filed on mere apprehension presumably preempting M/s Kameswari and interfere with Subbarao further efforts to from making petitioner’s possession. If there is still threat from those two persons, remedy is to go to civil Court for permanent injunction. If petitioner’s occupation is legitimate and legal, there cannot be any reason for fourth respondent to interfere without due process of law. The writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary Revenue Dept., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Dist. Collector Krishna Dist. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Nuzividu Krishna Dist. 4 The Tahsildar (MRO) Gannavaram Mandal Gannavaram, Krishna Dist. 5 2CCs to 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}
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.