Telangana High Court
WP/28427/2008 of Pasumarthi Kanakalingeswara Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28427 of 2008 Between: 1 Pasumarthi Kanakalingeswara Rao S/o. Subbarao R/o.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28427 of 2008
Between:
1 Pasumarthi Kanakalingeswara Rao S/o. Subbarao R/o. Gokavaram Village & Mandal, East Godavari District.
2 Pasumarthi Satyabhimaraju S/o. Subbarao R/o. Gokavaram Village & Mandal, East Godavari District.
3 Pasumarthi V.V.S. Ramakrishna S/o. Ramarao R/o. Gokavaram Village & Mandal, East Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, SocialWelfare Department (LTR-II),Welfare Department (LTR-II), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 Agent to Government & District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
3 Additional Agent to Government, Rampachodavaram, East GodavariDistrict.
4 Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
5 Chidum Sriramulu, S/o. Sankuru Dora,
Ojubanda Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent inrejecting the stay of operation of the orders of the 3rd respondent videLr.No.9095/LTR-2-2008-2, dt. 05.2.2008 pending revision filed underSec.6 of A.P. Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation Act & Rules asillegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice consequently directing therespondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in an extentof Ac.2-17 cts in S.No.8/1, Ac.1-86 in S.No.2/4, Ac.5-23 cts in R.S.No.26/1and Ac.2-40 in S.No.20/3 of Ozubanda Village, Gangavaram Mandal,East Godavari District.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
The Court made the following :
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
According to the petitioner, he is in possession of the land inquestion since times immemorial. But, however, on a complaint made by the 5[th] respondent, proceedings were initiated against himunder sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh ScheduledAreas Land transfer Regulation 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of1970. After an enquiry, the 3[rd] respondent-Additional Agent toGovernment, Rampachodavarma, East Godavari District whileallowing the complaint , ordered eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appealand the same ended in dismissal. Hence, he approached therevisional authority, who is arrayed as 1[st] respondent herein, andfiled revision along with an application seeking suspension of the saidorders. But, since no orders have been passed, the petitionerapproached this Court and filed WP No.20704 of 2008 and this Courtwas pleased to dispose of the said writ petition at the stage ofadmission with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider therevision and pass appropriate orders and also directed that statusquo existing as on that day with regard to possession shall bemaintained, pending disposal of the revision or the application filed bythe petitioners seeking stay of the orders passed by the primaryauthority as confirmed by the appellate authority, whichever is earlier.
Pursuant to the said orders, it appears that the 1[st]respondent, on consideration of the stay application, refused to grantstay. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed thepresent writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the
Conclusion
stage of admission with a direction to the 1[st] respondent not to evictthe petitioner from out of the land in question till the said revision isdecided. As the 5[th] respondent is a party to the said revision beforethe Government, the Government shall give opportunity of hearing tohim also before passing any orders. The entire exercise shall bedone within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
rkk
___________
29-12-2008