Telangana High Court
WP/28699/2008 of Mandapaka Katam Swamy Vs The Addl.Agent to Government, East godavari Ditrict 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 : 28699 of 2008 Between: Mandapaka Katam Swamy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO : 28699 of 2008
Between:
Mandapaka Katam Swamy
AND
..... PETITIONER
1.The Additional Agent to Government, East GodavariDistrict, at Rampachodavaram.District, at Rampachodavaram.
2.The Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
3.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare (LTR-2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
4.Varre Chittibabu, R/o Pidathamamidi village, Gangavaram Mandal, E.G.District. Gangavaram Mandal, E.G.District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court willbe pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, suspending the order of the respondentNO.1 in CMA No.67 of 2005 dated 01.12.2008 (arising out of LTRPNo.220 of 2003 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, (TW)Rampachodavaram), pending statutory revision filed by the petitionerdated 23.12.2008 on the file of the 3[rd] respondent Governmen t againstthe said order in CMA No.67 of 2005 dated 01.12.2008 and pass suchother order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of thecase.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION No.28699 of 2008
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:
Initially second respondent filed LTRP No.220 of 2003 underthe provisions of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of1959 as amended by 1 of 1970 before the Special Deputy Collector,(Tribal Welfare) Rampachodavaram seeking ejectment of the fourthrespondent from the land to an extent of Ac.14.42 cents in Sy.No.73in Pdatamamidi Village, Gangavaram Mandal in East GodavariDistrict and after due enquiry, the Special Deputy Collector passedan order dated 03.02.2004 in favour of the fourth respondent holdingthat the possession of the fourth respondent over the said land is notviolative and ultimately dismissed the said LTRP No.220/2003. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner carried the matter before the firstrespondent in C.M.A.No.67 of 2005, which was dismissed on01.12.2008. Assailing the same, the petitioner in this Writ Petitionpreferred a revision before the third respondent and along with therevision, the petitioner also filed an application seeking suspensionof the order passed by the first respondent. However, as no ordershave yet been passed on the said application, the petitionerapproached this court and filed the present Writ Petitionapprehending dispossession.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 2 (o) ofthe Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 wherein the words “othertraditional forest dweller” is defined according to which any memberof community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13[th]day of December 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on theforest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs and contendedthat the fourth respondent does not come under the purview of saiddefinition.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the presentWrit Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission as follows:
Conclusion
In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing thethird respondent to dispose of the revision pending before it within aperiod of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order andpass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity ofpersonal hearing to the petitioner. However, pending disposal of thesame, the order passed by the first respondent in CMA No.67 of2005 dated 01.12.2008 shall be suspended. However, the petitioneris at liberty to raise all the contentions, which are now raised in thisWrit Petition before the third respondent in the revision. No order asto costs.
29.12.2008Gsn
--------------------------------------------------------JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA