Telangana High Court
WP/28547/2008 of K. Venkata Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28547 of 2008 Between: K. Venkata Rao S/o. Suryanarayana R/o. Parawada Village, &
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINIWRIT PETITION NO : 28547 of 2008
Between:
K. Venkata Rao S/o. Suryanarayana R/o. Parawada Village, & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3 The District Collector ,Visakhapatnam .
4 K. Sanyasaiah S/o. Chinna Sanyasaiah
Residing at Vennelapalem Village Visakhapatnam District
.....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. 17-11-2007 by the 1st and 2ndrespondents is illegal, arbitrary, illegal and against the law andconsequently set aside the same and pass 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. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 28547 of 2008
O R D E R :
Page 1 of 2
The Tahsildar, Paravada Mandal-the third respondent herein byorder dated 17-11-2007, passed under Andhra Pradesh AssignedLands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, cancelled the assignmentmade in favour of one Kothurthi Sanyasayya with immediate effect. The petitioner herein, who claims to have purchased the said assignedland from the said assignee, preferred an appeal before the secondrespondent-Revenue Divisional Officer along with an application forstay. It is alleged that in spite of several requests, the secondrespondent has not passed any orders either on his appeal or on theapplication for stay and in the meanwhile, the third respondent istaking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land in questionpursuant to the order dated 17-11-2007. Hence, the present writpetition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
Since the statutory appeal is admittedly pending before thesecond respondent, I deem it appropriate to protect the possession ofthe petitioner till the said appeal is considered and decided on merits.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writpetition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent todispose of the appeal pending on his file preferred against the order ofthe third respondent dated 17-11-2007, following due process of lawas expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the orderof the third respondent dated 17-11-2007 shall not be given effect to. No costs.
______________G. ROHINI, J
Date: 31-12-2008KLP
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…