M.Subhashini Vs District Collector

High Court For The State Of Telangana:: At Hyderabad 30 Nov 2022 Writ Petition No. 21084 Of 2008 (2022) 11 TEL CK 0116
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 21084 Of 2008

Hon'ble Bench

K.Sarath, J

Advocates

K Govind

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition and Transfers) Rules, 1977 - Rule 3

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“….to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents

to interfering and threatening the petitioner to demolish the existing boundary stones and fencing in plot bearing Nos.60 and 61 admeasuring 900

Sq.Yards situated in Sy.No.244/86 at Pedda Amberpet village, Hayathnagar Mandal,R.R.District without issuing any show-cause notice, or without

due process of lawâ€​.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are trying to demolish the existing boundary stones and fencing in plot bearing

Nos.60 and 61 admeasuring 900 Sq.Yards situated in Sy.No.244/86 at Pedda Amberpet village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District without issuing any

show-cause notice, or without following due process of law and the same is illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

4. At the time of admission, this Court has granted interim Orders on 05.11.2008 and noticed that no notice was issued to the petitioner, who is in

possession of the land, as contemplated under Rule-3 of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition and Transfers) Rules, 1977. Even after lapse of more

than fourteen years the respondents were did not chose to file counter in this matter.

5. In view the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, without following

the due process of law. If they want to do so, the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, pass

appropriate orders.

6. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall no order as to costs.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Questions Multiplex Food Prices: “₹100 for Water, ₹700 for Coffee”
Nov
05
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Questions Multiplex Food Prices: “₹100 for Water, ₹700 for Coffee”
Read More
Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord Heirs’ Rights, Orders Eviction of Sub-Tenants in Ownership Dispute
Nov
05
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord Heirs’ Rights, Orders Eviction of Sub-Tenants in Ownership Dispute
Read More