Telangana High Court
WP/28548/2008 of Pyla Bangaramma, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28548 of 2008 Between: Pyla Bangaramma, W/o. Appalanaidu, Residing at Parawada Village
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINIWRIT PETITION NO : 28548 of 2008
Between:
Pyla Bangaramma, W/o. Appalanaidu,
Residing at Parawada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3 The District Collector ,Visakhapatnam District 4 K. Sanayasaiah, S/o. Chinna Sanyasaiah, Vennelapalem village Visakhapatnam 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJA GOPALA RAO HANUMANTHU
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 28548 of 2008
O R D E R :
Page 1 of 2
The Tahsildar, Paravada Mandal-the third respondent herein byorder dated 17-11-2007, passed under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, cancelled the assignment made infavour of one Kothurthi Sanyasayya with immediate effect. The petitionerherein, who claims to have purchased the said assigned land from thesaid assignee, preferred an appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer along with an application for stay. It is allegedthat in spite of several requests, the second respondent has not passedany orders either on his appeal or on the application for stay and in themeanwhile, the third respondent is taking steps to dispossess thepetitioner from the land in question pursuant to the order dated 17-11-2007. Hence, the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
Since the statutory appeal is admittedly pending before the secondrespondent, I deem it appropriate to protect the possession of thepetitioner till the said appeal is considered and decided on merits.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writpetition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent todispose of the appeal pending on his file preferred against the order of thethird respondent dated 17-11-2007, following due process of law asexpeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the order of thethird respondent dated 17-11-2007 shall not be given effect to. No costs.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Date: 31-12-2008KLP
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…