Telangana High Court
WP/28377/2007 of Mohammed Abdul Khadar Vs The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) on 31 December 2007
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28377 of 2007 Date: December 31, 2007 Between: Mohammed Abdul Khadar … Petitioner And 1. The Special Deputy Collector (TW) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and 3 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: The petitioner in this writ petition questions the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28377 of 2007Date: December 31, 2007
Between:
Mohammed Abdul Khadar … Petitioner
And
1. The Special Deputy Collector (TW) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and 3 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:
The petitioner in this writ petition questions the inaction on thepart of second respondent-appellate authority in passing orders eitheron the stay petition or on the appeal filed against the order of evictiondated 20[th] October 2007 passed in L.T.R. Case No.214/2007/MGR bythe Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.
2. The petitioner claims title and possession over an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas of land covered by survey Nos.220, 221 and 227 ofBandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. It isstated that the petitioner has purchased the same under sada saledeed dated 04[th] August 1962 prior to Regulation scheme came intoforce prohibiting transfers from tribals. The Special Deputy Collector(Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, passed an order of eviction overrulingobjections of the petitioner as against which the petitioner preferredappeal along with application of stay on 05.12.2007.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing forrespondents.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that earlier proceedings inL.T.R. Case No.206/1987/MGR in between the father of the 4[th]respondent and petitioner’s father are dropped and on the similar set ofallegations, however, without recording any further valid reasons theimpugned order of eviction is passed. It is also submitted that as muchas he is in possession of the schedule land prior to thecommencement of the Regulation 1 of 1959, the transfer was not hit byeither Regulation 1 of 1959 or amended Regulation 1 of 1970. It isstated that as against the order of eviction the petitioner preferredappeal on 05.12.2007, but however no orders are passed.
5. In view of the pendency of the appeal it is not desirable to recordfindings on merits of the case. As much as it is stated that petitionschedule property was purchased as early as 04[th] August 1962 andthere are structures raised by the petitioner and taking into account theappeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before theappellate authority, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiondirecting the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred bythe petitioner on 05.12.2007. Pending disposal of the appeal therespondents are directed not to enforce the order of eviction dated 20[th]October 2007 passed in L.T.R.No.214/2007/MGR.
6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Date: December 31, 2007.BSB
_________________________(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)