Telangana High Court
WP/22626/2007 of Goluguri Suryanarayana Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.22626 and 28173 of 2007 Between: Goluguri Suryanarayana Reddy and others. .. PETITIONERS and The Government of A.P. and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.22626 and 28173 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since similar question
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
W.P.Nos.22626 and 28173 of 2007
Between:
Goluguri Suryanarayana Reddy and others.
.. PETITIONERS
and
The Government of A.P. and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
W.P.Nos.22626 and 28173 of 2007
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.
COMMON ORDER:
Since similar question that arises for consideration in these writpetitions, the same are taken up together for disposal by way of commonorder.
It is the case of the petitioners that the lands in their occupation wereoriginally leased out and after expiry of the lease period, for removal of theencroachment, notices under Section 7 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905(for short “the Act”), were served on the petitioners on 07-10-2007asking them to submit explanations on 08-10-2007, without givingreasonable time of 15 days to submit explanations. Thereafter, final noticesunder Section 6 of the Act have been issued on 09-10-2007 calling upon thepetitioners to vacate the encroached land within seven days. Aggrieved bythe same, these writ petitions have been filed.
In W.P.No.22626 of 2007, on 25-10-2007, while issuing notice beforeadmission, directed to maintain status-quo. Thereafter, W.P.No.28173 of2007 has been filed.
Admittedly, it appears that reasonable opportunity has not been givento the petitioners to submit explanations. But, however, as against the orderspassed under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioners have got an effectivealternative remedy by way of filing appeals under Section 10 of the Act.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writpetitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to file appeals against thenotices issued under Section 6 of the Act, within ten days from today. If anysuch appeals are filed within ten days from today, status-quo obtaining as ontoday with regard to the possession of the lands in question shall bemaintained, pending disposal of the appeals. There shall be no order as tocosts.
___________
Note:Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv