Telangana High Court
WA/1088/2007 of Smt. Tatikonda. Nagendram W/o Subramanyam, Vs The Dist Collector, on 31 December 2007
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT A.PPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2007 Dated : December 31, 2007 Between: Smt. Tatikonda Nagendram and others Appellants AND The District Collector, Guntur and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OFANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT A.PPEAL NO.1088 OF 2007
Dated : December 31, 2007
Between:
Smt. Tatikonda Nagendram and others
Appellants
AND
The District Collector, Guntur and others Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2007
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI)
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2007
made in WP No.26431 of 2007, whereby a learned SingleJudge of this court while leaving it open to the petitionersto seek impleadment in the Contempt Case CC No.742 of2007, and seek appropriate relief, the present writ appealis preferred.
The appellants who are petitioners in the above writpetition assail the notices dated 15.11.2007 in RCNo.2280/2007-D whereby they were ordered to vacate thepremises within one week, inasmuch as the land to anextent of Ac.0.76 cents in Sy. No. 305/2 of Korritapaduvillage, Guntur Mandal belongs to the fifth respondentherein and the appellants – petitioners have encroachedthereon.
On 14.12.2007, when the writ petition came up forhearing, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed thefollowing order:
“…Post after one week.
Meanwhile it is open for the petitioners toseek impleadment in the contempt case reliedon by them and seek appropriate relieftherein…”
Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filedinter alia contending among other grounds that the orderof the learned Single Judge is contrary to law inasmuchas the appellants cannot seek impleadment in thecontempt case, which the learned Single Judge did notconsider.
Mr. K. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for thefifth respondent submitted that the land in question hadalready been restored back to the owner pursuant to theorder of this court in WP No. 22888 of 2002 and CC No.742 of 2007, which is affirmed by the learned GovernmentPleader for Revenue.
In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances ofthe case, the writ appeal is disposed of with a liberty to theappellants herein to make a representation to theappropriate authority for providing alternative site.
With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposedof. No order as to costs.
____________________
T.MEENA KUMARI, J.
December 31, 2007MAS
____________
G.ROHINI, J.