Telangana High Court
WP/38888/2013 of Rahmatullah Khan, S/o. Bakshullah, Vs Government of A. P. on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION NO.38888 OF 2013 % 31.12.2013 #1. Rahmatullah Khan and one other. …PETITIONERS VERSUS $1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. …RESPONDENTS
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
+ WRIT PETITION NO.38888 OF 2013
% 31.12.2013
#1. Rahmatullah Khan and one other.
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
$1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
…RESPONDENTS
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs. V.Dyumani ^Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue ?Cases Referred THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.38888 OF 2013
Dated 31st December 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Rahmatullah Khan and one other.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Mrs. V.Dyumani Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38888 OF 2013
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set asideproceedings No. A 1/2150/2013 dated 28.12.2013 of respondent No.3.
At the hearing, Smt. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for thepetitioners, has not disputed that her clients have filed an appeal underSection 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (“theAct’ for short), against the impugned order. She further stated that asrespondent No.3 has allowed a three days time for vacating theproperty, they have filed the present Writ Petition.
This Court has been constantly noticing that while passingeviction orders, the primary authorities (Tahsildars concerned) havenot been granting reasonable time to the aggrieved parties for vacationof the premises and the appellate authorities are not passing orders onthe interlocutory applications, filed seeking stay of interim orders. As aresult of this lack of rational approach on the part of the primary as wellas the appellate authorities, the legal remedies of appeal and revisionare rendered otiose.
A fundamental feature of our legal system is right to avail furtherremedies wherever the extant statutory enactments provided for suchremedies. Such a legal right cannot be scuttled by fixing arbitrary time limits for implementation of the orders, which are subject to furtherlegal remedies at the option of the aggrieved parties. RespondentNo.1 is therefore directed to issue a circular to the authorities under theAct to provide at least thirty days’ time, which is stipulated as limitationfor filing appeals for vacation of the properties covered by the evictionorders. The Circular shall further provide that the appellate authorityshall pass an appropriate order on the stay application asexpeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three daysfrom the filing of the stay application. Respondent No.1 shall send acopy of the circular to the Registrar (Judicial) for being placed beforethis Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Having regard to the availability of the effective alternativeremedy of appeal, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition foradjudication on merits. However, as respondent No.3 has stipulated awholly inadequate period of three days for vacation of the premises,the order of respondent No.3 is suspended subject to the condition thatthe petitioners shall file an appeal within two weeks from today. Theorder of suspension of the impugned order shall continue till such timeas an appropriate order is passed by the appellate authority in the stayapplication to be filed in the proposed appeal.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the manner indicatedabove.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48332 of2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] December 2013
Conclusion
Note: 1. Issue CC to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. LR Copies.B/O
RRB