K.Kistaiah Vs. the State of A.P., Reptd by Its District

K.Kistaiah vs The State of A.P., Reptd by Its District

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 08, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1098481

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1098481
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Decided On: Nov 08, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.Kistaiah

Respondent

The State of A.P., Reptd by Its District

Excerpt

.....of 2003. the said writ petition was disposed of by this court by order, dated 25.11.2010 with the following observations: ".counsel for the petitioner and assistant government pleader for revenue (telangana area) submit that the auction was not held on 17.09.2003. in that view of the matter, there is no necessity to adjudicate the matter. however, the application of the petitioner, if any, for alienation of the said land in his favour as per the government alienation rules may be considered if the petitioner is eligible and the land in possession is not required for any public purpose.". thereafter, the petitioner blissfully continued in occupation of the government land without troubling himself to approach the respondents with a request to alienate the land on the market value. the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the allegation that the staff of respondent no.2 came to the land on 05.11.2013 and tried to take possession of the same. ordinarily, an encroacher of the government land is not entitled to the protection of the courts. when the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to get the land alienated on market value, he has done precious little towards that end. this court is, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india for protection of his unlawful possession of a very valuable government land which is situated within the greater hyderabad municipal corporation limits. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. as a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, w.p.m.p.no.39804 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ justice c.v.nagarjuna reddy08h november, 2013

Full Judgment

HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32025 of 2013 08-11-2013 K.Kistaiah....Petitioner The State of A.P., Reptd by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another......Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.M.V.Suresh Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue : ?.

Cases Referred: NIL HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32025 of 2013 Date:08.11.2013 The Court made the following: ORDER

: The petitioner, who is admittedly in unauthorised possession of the Government land admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas in Survey No.4 of Rayadurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed this Writ Petition seeking protection of this Court to his unlawful possession.

A perusal of the record shows that when the respondents sought to hold public auction of the above-mentioned land on 17.09.2003, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19511 of 2003.

The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 25.11.2010 with the following observations: ".Counsel for the petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area) submit that the auction was not held on 17.09.2003.

In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to adjudicate the matter.

However, the application of the petitioner, if any, for alienation of the said land in his favour as per the Government alienation rules may be considered if the petitioner is eligible and the land in possession is not required for any public purpose.".

Thereafter, the petitioner blissfully continued in occupation of the Government land without troubling himself to approach the respondents with a request to alienate the land on the market value.

The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition with the allegation that the staff of respondent No.2 came to the land on 05.11.2013 and tried to take possession of the same.

Ordinarily, an encroacher of the Government land is not entitled to the protection of the Courts.

When the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to get the land alienated on market value, he has done precious little towards that end.

This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for protection of his unlawful possession of a very valuable Government land which is situated within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.39804 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY08h November, 2013

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties K.Kistaiah vs The State of A.P., Reptd by Its District Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy