Telangana High Court
WP/38684/2013 of Nandamuri Ramabrahmmam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38684 OF 2013 Dated 30th December 2013 BETWEEN: Nandamuri Ramabrahmmam. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and seven others.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38684 OF 2013
Dated 30thDecember 2013
BETWEEN:
Nandamuri Ramabrahmmam.
…PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and seven others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri M.V.Durga Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8: Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38684 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 the orderin proceeding Rc.C/1477/2011 dated 11.12.2013 of respondent No.3.
After arguing the case vociferously by Sreenivasa Rao Velivela,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learnedcounsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8, have fairly submitted that as a de novo enquiry is directed to be held by respondent No.4, both partiesmay be directed to maintain status quo in all respects till such enquiry is completed and appropriate orders passed by respondent No.4.
In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for theparties, the necessity for this Court to adjudicate the validity orotherwise of the order of respondent No.3 is obviated. Accordingly,both parties are directed to maintain status quo in all respects withrespect to the property in question till a fresh order is passed inpursuance of order of respondent No.3 by respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a freshorder after hearing both parties within a period of three (3) months fromthe date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48078 of2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
30[th] December 2013RRB