Telangana High Court
WP/28033/2008 of Yellapeddi Veerabhadra Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28033 of 2008 Between: 1 Yellapeddi Veerabhadra Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28033 of 2008
Between:
1 Yellapeddi Veerabhadra Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu
J. Annavaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District.2 .
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social Welfare (LTR-2)Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary.
2 The Additional Agent to Government, Rampachodavaram, EastGodavari District.3 The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Rampachodavaram,East Godavari District.4 The Special Deputy Tahsildar Tribal Welfare, Addatigala, EastGodavari District.
5 The Tahsildar, Addatigala Mandal, Addatigala, East Godavari District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent innot passing orders in Revision Petition and further declare the order of the3nd respondent in L.T.R.P.No.313/2003 dted 10.09.2003 as confirmed bythe 2nd respondent in C.M.A.No.21/ 2004 dated 04.12.2008, as highlyillegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without jurisdiction and consequentlyset-a-side the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
The Court made the following :
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 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the inaction of the 1[st] respondent in considering the revision filed by himagainst the order dated 4.12.2008 passed in CMA No.21 of 2004.
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Acs.11.17 cents of land comprising Sy.No.18 of 59 of KothurupaduVillage, Addatigala Mandal, East Godavari District. Earlier,proceedings have been initiated for ejectment, against which anappeal was preferred and the same was dismissed as against thesame, WP No.5250 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner and the samewas disposed of by observing that the respondents are at liberty toinitiate proceedings against the petitioner for being in possession ofthe land as non-tribal in the scheduled areas under provisions of anyother law. Again, the 4[th] respondent filed a case in LTRP No.313 of2002, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas LandTransfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970,before the 3[rd] respondent- Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare,Rampachodavaram. The 3[rd] respondent without examining thepetitioner, issued eviction proceedings by directing the 5[th] respondentto implement the eviction orders and report compliance. Aggrievedby the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Agent to the Government, Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam-2[nd]respondent. The appellate authority, on reconsidering the materialplaced on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with theorder passed by the primary authority and accordingly, dismissed theappeal. Thereafter, he filed revision before the 1[st] respondent andalso moved stay application. There being no orders passed by the1[st] respondent on the revision as well as the stay application, heapproached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader for Social Welfare & Tribal Welfareappearing on behalf of R1 to R5.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that therespondents are contemplating to dispossess the petitioner from theland in dispute pending revision.
The factual aspect of the petitioner filing revision before the1[st] respondent is not in dispute.
Arguments
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the 1[st] respondent to consider the revision filed by thepetitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pendingconsideration of the said revision, the respondents shall not interferewith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question.No costs.
_________
24-12-2008
Note: Issue wire at party’s costs.(B.O) rkk