Telangana High Court
WP/33723/2010 of Gouravarapu Kanaka Rao Vs The Additional Agent to Government AND Project officer on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33723 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. Petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.8.00
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33723of2010
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for therespondents.
Petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of landadmeasuring Acs.8.00 covered by Survey Nos.12/E and 12/AAsituated at Raimadharam Village, Enkoor Mandal, Khammam District.On the complaint of one Dharavat Sakru, proceedings were initiatedunder the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas LandTransfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 inCase No.51/2007/ENK and the second respondent – Special DeputyCollector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, passedorder, dated 20.10.2007, for eviction of the petitioner from the land toan extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.12/E. It is stated that asagainst the said order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.16 of 2008 beforethe first respondent – Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam.He also filed I.A.No.16 of 2008 therein seeking interim orders.Thereupon, interim stay for a period of four (4) months was passed bythe first respondent by order, dated 18.03.2008. The said interim orderwas extended for further four months, by order, dated 19.07.2008. Hisgrievance is that in spite of filing application for extension of interimorders, they are not extended and the respondents are taking steps forhis eviction. It is also stated that C.M.A.No.16 of 2008 filed by him isstill pending consideration.
With regard to validity of order, dated 20.10.2007, passed by thesecond respondent is a matter to be examined by the first respondent - appellate authority in C.M.A.No.16 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. Asmuch as it is stated that purchase of land was made prior to theRegulations came into force prohibiting transfers in the scheduledareas, and as it is stated that the appellate authority has alreadypassed interim orders in I.A.No.16 of 2008, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent - appellate authorityto dispose of C.M.A.No.16 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner asexpeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of eviction,dated 20.10.2007, passed in Case No.51/2007/ENK, by the secondrespondent shall remain suspended till C.M.A.No.16 of 2008 isdisposed of by the first respondent - appellate authority. There shall bea further direction to the respondents that they shall allow the petitionerto cultivate the land in question till disposal of C.M.A.No.16 of 2008and orders passed therein are communicated to him.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.No order as to costs.
_______________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
31[st] DECEMBER, 2010.kvni