Telangana High Court
WP/27340/2007 of P.Lalithamma Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by its Prl. Secretary, on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27340 OF 2007 DATED: 26-12-2007 BETWEEN P. Lalithamma, W/o. P. Bathi Reddy, R/o. Tummalagunta Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and others. …PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.27340 OF 2007
DATED: 26-12-2007
BETWEEN
P. Lalithamma, W/o. P. Bathi Reddy,R/o. Tummalagunta Village,Tirupathi Rural Mandal,Chittoor District and others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad and others.
…RESPONDENTS
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:
Petitioners submit that they have filed appeals before the RevenueDivisional Officer, Tirupati in Appeal Nos.701, 436, 617, 615 and 700 of 2003respectively against the final orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer,Tirupati dated 10.02.2003 and 16.04.2003 respectively under Section 6 of theAndhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). Theyfurther submit that when the Revenue Divisional Officer attempted todispossess them, pending the appeals, they filed writ petitions inW.P.Nos.9707 to 9710 and 10122 of 2003 respectively. This Court bydifferent orders directed the appellate authority to dispose the appeals withinsix weeks from the date of receipt of the said orders.
2. Petitioners further submit that in spite of the orders of this Court theappeals have not been considered and disposed. They further assert that they have been in possession of the land in question whereas the learnedcounsel for the fourth respondent – Tirupati Urban Development Authority(TUDA), submits that the said land has been handed over to the fourthrespondent.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the aforesaid appeals arepending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati with regard tothe summary eviction orders passed in respect of the land in question of anextent of Ac.9.30 cents in Sy.No.61; Ac.7.38 cents in Sy.No.62 and Ac.4.48cents in Sy.No.63 and the said lands are classified as poromboke lands.
4. One of the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer inD.Dis.No.451/2002 dated 10.02.2003 goes to show that the lands in questionare classified as poromboke and handed over to TUDA for developmentunder Neeru Meeru programme during 2002 but the operative portion of theorders goes to show that the encroachment of the land, which is classifiedas poromboke, is liable for eviction and therefore, the petitioners weredirected to vacate the said land. Therefore, I am not inclined to express anyopinion with regard to the status of actual possession obtaining as on today.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andpending disposal of the appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, statusquo obtaining as on today with regard to the possession of the land, betweenthe petitioners and the fourth respondent, shall be maintained.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
December 26, 2007Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 27.12.2007 (B/o) DSKNote: Furnish C.C. of the order by 27.12.2007 (B/o) DSK
______________
V. ESWARAIAH, J