Telangana High Court
WP/38980/2013 of V. Ashok, S/o V. Ananda Rao, aged 41 years Vs The Commissioner, Appeals, on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38980 OF 2013 Dated 31st December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. V.Ashok, S/o.V.Ananda Rao and fourteen others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and six
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38980 OF 2013
Dated 31st December 2013
BETWEEN:
1. V.Ashok, S/o.V.Ananda Rao and fourteen others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o. The Chief Commissioner of LandAdministration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and six others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. H.Venugopal Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6: Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.7:
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38980 OF 2013
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.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order inproceedings in CCLA’s Ref.No.P3/622/2003, dated 13.12.2013 ofrespondent No.1 whereby he has kept proceedings No.N2/4087/2002dated 17.03.2003 in abeyance.
Though prima facie this Court feels that the impugned order,keeping a ten year old order in abeyance without even giving reasons,is some what unusual, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage as the petitioners shall first move respondent No.1 seekingvacation of the said order. If any order adverse to their interests ispassed on such application, the petitioners may approach this Courtfor assailing the same.
In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of bypermitting the petitioners to move respondent No.1 for vacation of theimpugned order. If such application is moved, respondent No.1 shallconsider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing both theparties and by giving reasons in support of his order within one monthfrom the date of filing such application.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48434 of2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] December 2013RRB