Telangana High Court
WP/28289/2008 of Daljeet Singh Vs The Joint Collector 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 : 28289 of 2008 Between: 1 Daljeet Singh S/o Late S.Satpal Singh House No.3-6-69/b/69
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.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 28289 of 2008
Between:
1 Daljeet Singh S/o Late S.Satpal Singh
House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony BasheerbaghHyderabad 2 Balavinder Singh S/o Late S.Satpal Singh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony BasheerbaghHyderabad 3 Navaljit Kaur W/o.Daljeet Sigh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony Basheerbagh Hyderabad 4 Satwant Kaur W/oBalvinder Singh House No.3-6-69/b/69 Avantinagar Colony Basheerbagh Hyderabad
.....
PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Joint Collector R.R.District, at Lakdi Ka Pool, Hyderabad.
2 The RDO, Chevella at Attapur, R.R.District.
3 The Tahsildar, Sankarpally Mandal, R.R.Dist.
4 P.Srinivas Reddy S/o. P.Sherva Reddy
6-3-596/24, Venkatramana Colony Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
5 A.Venkateswar Reddy S/o. A.Pratap Reddy 3-4-284, Lingampally, Kacheguda, Hyderabad.
6 G.Mallesh S/o. G.Pochaiah
14,Jeera, R.P.Raod, Secunderabad.
7 B.Harish Reddy, S/o. B.Sarotham Reddy
Jajeshwar Rao, Ground Floor, Bhagatsingh Nagar, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, R.R.District.
Page 1 of 3
8 Mohd Asif Ali Khan S/o. Late Nawab Hohsdar Khan Flat No.201, Mehtap Plaza, 10-2-287/A/2, Shanty Nagar,Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue a writ or orders more particularly one in thenature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1in suspending the order dt 10-12-2008 in case No.C/4198/2008passed by the respondent No.2 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutionalas illegal and arbitrary and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION No. 28289 of 2008
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action ofthe first respondent-Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District insuspending the order dated 10-12-2008 passed by the secondrespondent is arbitrary and illegal.
Admittedly, the impugned order was passed by the firstrespondent pending the revision petition filed by respondents 8 to 10herein under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattada Pass BooksAct, 1971 challenging the order passed by the second respondentdated 10-12-2008 in respect of the land in Sy.No.307 of Janwadavillage, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The first respondent, having entertained the revision petition,while granting interim suspension of the order of the secondrespondent dated 10-12-2008, adjourned the matter to 24-01-2009. The said order has been challenged in this writ petitionprimarily on the ground that the impugned order which was passedwithout notice to the petitioners herein in spite of the caveat entered ontheir behalf is arbitrary and illegal apart from being in violation ofprinciples of natural justice. Various other contentions have been alsobeen raised on merits.
Page 2 of 3
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 aswell as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8,9 and 10.
Since the revision petition is admittedly pending before the firstrespondent and the validity of the order dated 10-12-2008 passed bythe second respondent is the subject matter of the said revisionpetition, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express anyopinion on merits. Moreover, since the impugned order is only aninterim order, it is always open to the petitioners herein to file anappropriate application before the first respondent to vacate the saidorder in which event, the first respondent will consider the same andpass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that thefirst respondent, having granted the interim order adjourned the matterto 24-01-2009 and therefore the petitioners are unable to takeimmediate steps for getting the order vacated.
In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writpetition with a direction to the first respondent to receive theapplication if any filed by the petitioners herein to vacate the orderdated 17-12-2008 and pass appropriate orders following due processof law by preponing the date fixed in the impugned order dated 17-12-2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably with in a period of oneweek from the date of filing of such application.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
______________
G. ROHINI,J
Date: 31-12-2008Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow.B/oKLP
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…