Telangana High Court
WP/28540/2008 of Bandaru Sanyasamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28540 of 2008 Between: 1 Bandaru Sanyasamma W/o. Sanyasi Naidu R/o. Vennelapalem Village,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 28540 of 2008
Between:
1 Bandaru Sanyasamma W/o. Sanyasi Naidu R/o. Vennelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, VisakhapatnamDistrict2 Bandaru Sanyasamma W/o. Pothi Naidu R/o. Vennelapalem Village, Parawada Mandal, VisakhapatnamDistrict
.....
PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3 The District Collector ,Visakhapatnam .
4 Smt. Kothurthi Lakshmi and Others
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue an order or orders more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondentswithout conducting the proper enquiry in to the issue and issuing theproceedings No. 107/07/SA dt. 3-8-2007 by the 1st and 2ndrespondents is illegal, arbitrary, illegal and against the law andconsequently set aside the same.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAJA GOPALA RAOHANUMANTHU
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION No. 28540 of 2008
O R D E R :
Page 1 of 2
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the partof the first respondent in considering the appeal preferred by thepetitioners as against the order dated 03-08-2007 passed by the second respondent cancelling theassignment under Section 4(1) (a) of the Andhra PradeshAssigned Lands (Prohibition and Transfers) Act, 1977.
It is stated by the petitioners that though the appeal waspreferred long back in the year 2007, first respondent failed toconsider the appeal and no orders have been passed even on theirapplication for stay. It is alleged that taking advantage of thependency of the proceedings, the second respondent is trying todispossess the petitioners from the land in question. Hence, thepresent writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for therespondents and keeping in view the statutory appeal is pendingon the file of the first respondent, without going into the merits, Ideem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a directionto the first respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his filefollowing due process of law as expeditiously as possiblepreferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as ontoday as to the nature and possession of the land in question shallbe maintained. No costs.
______________G. ROHINI, J
Date: 30-12-2008KLP
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…