Telangana High Court
WP/27850/2005 of Kondlapalli Pothanna Vs The Joint Collector, Anantapur on 29 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27850 OF 2005 DATED:29.12.2005 Between: Kondapalli Pothanna …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27850 OF 2005 ORDER: The
WRIT PETITION NO.27850 OF 2005
DATED:29.12.2005
Between:Kondapalli Pothanna
And
The Joint Collector,Anantapur, Anantapur District and others …Petitioner …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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:
WRIT PETITION NO.27850 OF 2005
The petitioner is a resident of Sanapa Village. He is allegedly a legal heir of ChinnaLinganna, who was jointly assigned land admeasuring Acs.16.50 in S.No.143-8 to143-12 of Sanapa Village. After demise of the original assignees, it appears, thelegal heirs of assignees have been cultivating the land by using bore-well water.Some of the legal heirs requested to cancel the assignment made in 1970 or 1974and reassign the same having regard to ridges formed by cultivators from East toWest since long time. The Revenue Divisional Officer, as directed by the JointCollector, conducted personal inspection, recorded statements of large number oflegal heirs and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to sub-divide the lands as perthe enjoyment on the ground. Aggrieved by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dt.24.9.2005, the petitioner and others filed appeal before the firstrespondent along with application for stay. While admitting the appeal, the firstrespondent refused to grant stay, aggrieved by which, present Writ Petition is filed.
After narrating the factual background of the matter, learned counsel for thepetitioner made only prayer to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appealfiled by the petitioner expeditiously. There cannot be any objection for the same.Therefore, now that the first respondent refused to pass any orders of stay, at leastthe first respondent should dispose of the appeal within a period of ten days from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law after giving notice to theappellants and other contesting respondents.
The Writ Petition with the above observations and directions is accordingly disposedof.
_______________
29.12.2005 (V.V.S.RAO, J)
Note:Issue CC today.
(B.O)bnr