Telangana High Court
WP/28557/2009 of Meda Narsimha Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28557 of 2009 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Meda Narasimha Rao …Petitioner and The Govt of A.P.., rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28557 of 2009
Date: 29.12.2009
Between:
Meda Narasimha Rao
…Petitioner
and
The Govt of A.P.., rep. by itsSecretary, Tribal Welfare Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28557 of 2009
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 Tahsildar, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District – the4[th] respondent initiated proceedings before the Special DeputyCollector (T.W.), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District – the 3[rd]respondent against the petitioner for eviction from the land inSurvey No.1040 of Ramanujavaram Village, Manuguru Mandal,Khammam District. The 3[rd] respondent dismissed the same videproceedings dated 30.05.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the 4[th]respondent filed C.M.A.No.61 of 2008 before the Additional Agentto Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Bhadrachalam,Khammam Ditrict – the 2[nd] respondent. The appeal was allowedon 29.08.2009. The petitioner filed a revision before the 1[st]respondent against the said order, together with an application forstay. His grievance is that the 1[st] respondent has not passed anyorders on the application submitted by him for stay, and that therespondents are trying to evict him in the meanwhile.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedstanding counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner availed a statutory remedy of filing revisionbefore the 1[st] respondent aggrieved by the order passed in theC.M.A.No.61 of 2008. If he is evicted from the land, even whilerevision is pending, the very purpose of filing the revision would bedefeated.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the 2[nd] respondent inC.M.A.No.61 of 2008 shall remain suspended till the 1[st]respondent passes orders on the application for stay, filed by thepetitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
December 29, 2009BVV
_________________________
JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Note:Issue C.C. in five days.
(B/O)
BVV