Telangana High Court
WP/46659/2016 of Dudala Seshaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2016
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.46659 of 2016 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in RS No.1569 of Survepalli Bit-II Village, Venkatachalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and while he was trying to make
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.46659 of 2016
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:
The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in RS No.1569 of Survepalli Bit-II Village, Venkatachalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and while he was trying to make construction over it, the 3[rd]respondent issued notice dated 26-12-2016 directing him to vacate and demolish the construction made on the said land. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the notice dated 26-12-2016 issued by the 3[rd] respondent.
Grievance of the petitioner is that pending consideration of the explanation submitted by him, he is being orally asked to vacate and demolish the construction of shop that is being built by him in the subject land by the 3[rd] respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice does not refer to any provision of law under which the notice is issued though, the petitioner is neither an encroacher nor an unauthorized occupant of any Government land or Gram Panchayat land. On the other hand, learned Asst. Government for Panchayat Raj submitted that earlier also the petitioner was issued with notice 27-09-2016 for the same reason of making unauthorized construction, which is again followed by the impugned notice dated 27-12-2016 and the explanation filed by the petitioner is under consideration by the 3[rd] respondent.
3. Inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioner is only with regard non-considering of the explanation submitted to the notice dated 27-12-2016 and without considering his explanation, the respondents are resorting to evict him without following the due process of law, suffice it to direct the 3[rd] respondent to consider the explanation said to have filed the petitioner to the notice dated 27-12-2016, and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. There shall be stay of demolition of the house in question of the petitioner till appropriate orders are passed by the 3[rd] respondent on the explanation of the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
___________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
Dated: 30-12-2016 NRG
//WEB//
NRG
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.46659 of 2016
Dated 30-12-2016