Telangana High Court
WA/1675/2014 of Ejju Krishnaveni Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary on 30 December 2014
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1675 of 2014 DATE: 30.12.2014 Between: Ejji Krishnaveni, Thotalo Kanuru, Krishna District. … Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Agriculture and
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1675 of 2014
Between:Ejji Krishnaveni,Thotalo Kanuru,Krishna District.
DATE: 30.12.2014
… Appellant
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,rep. by its Secretary,Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1675 of 2014
Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
We admit the appeal for the purpose of little modification of theorder and we dispose it of today itself.
The order of modification is as follows:
The Joint Collector in terms of the order of the learned trialJudge, will do the needful while considering letter No.RBZ/934/2013dated 29.11.2013 of the Chief Executive Officer, Rythu Bazars,Hyderabad, to extend the term of the appellant-writ petitioner as per hisdiscretion. This consideration shall be done within a period of fortnightfrom the date of communication of this order and in the event, theprayer for extension of the appellant-writ petitioner is not granted, thenthe appellant shall not be evicted till one week thereafter. Obviously,the said officer shall record the reasons for refusal of extension.
This modified order will be operating provided the appellant-writpetitioner has been in physical possession as of today, as the learnedcounsel for the State contends that the appellant-writ petitioner isalready evicted, which fact is denied by the learned counsel for theappellant.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shallalso stand dismissed. No costs.
_________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
Date: 30th December, 2014pnb
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J