JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Petitioners along with 38 others filed W.P. No. 33276 of 1998 inter alia
seeking a direction to the Collector,
Visakhapatnam District and the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Mandal,
not to dispossess them from their respective house plots in S. No. 1/2 in the lay out
plan approved under resolution No. 3-A
dated 1-7-1970 of Yendada Gram Panchayat
purchased by them under registered sale
deeds from their vendor A. Radha-krishnamurthy and filed W.P. M.P. No.
40900 of 1998 therein seeking a direction
to the respondents in the writ petition not
to dispossess them from their respective
house plots pending disposal of the Writ
Petition wherein a learned single Judge by
his order dated 13-11-1998, passed the following order :
"The learned Government Pleader for Assignments takes notice and requests two
weeks time for filing counter.
In the meanwhile, the respondents are
directed to maintain status quo existing as
on today in all respects, until further order."
which order is still in force. Alleging that
the respondents violated the above interim
order by issuing a notice in Form No. 1 as
per Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the
A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act')
petitioners filed this petition to punish the respondents for the contempt committed by them.
(2.)The case, in brief, of the petitioners is
that about two or three days prior to their
filing this petition, some persons, at the instance of the
revenue authorities, highhandedly started digging pits in their sites,
in spite of their objection and their being
informed of the above interim orders of the
Court, and so they got issued a lawyer notice dated 9-4-2005, to the respondents,
which was received by them on 12-4-2005,
and in spite thereof they were served notices in Form No. 1 to show cause why they
should not be evicted from the plots purchased by them.
(3.)
Prima facie, since there is nothing to
show that 1st respondent violated the order
dated 13-11-1998 in W.P.M.P. 40900 of 1998
and since it is the 2nd respondent that issued notice in Form No. 1
he only was directed to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt, whereupon he filed
his counter-affidavit alleging that after the
predecessor in his office, vide the resumption order dated 16-11-1987 in Rc. No.
2196/87/HA, resumed the land, petitioners and others made a representation to the
District Collector alleging that they purchased house plots from A. Radhakrishna-
murthy under registered sale deeds and filed
W.P. No. 33276 of 1998 and obtained an interim direction of stay from dispossession,
but since the land was already resumed and
since their purchase was subsequent to the
resumption from the original assignee, they
cannot claim any right in the land which is
under the custody of the Government for
construction of house under 'Rajiv Gruha
Kalpa Scheme' and petitioners, if they feel
that they are eligible for assignment of land,
can apply under the 'Rajiv Gruha Kalpa
Scheme".
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.