Telangana High Court
WP/26602/2006 of Yelabaka Kanthamma, Vs the Project Officer, ITDA and Additional Agent to on 22 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26602 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, having initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas (Land Transfer) Regulation 1 of 1959 (for short “Regulations 1 of
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.26602 OF 2006
ORAL ORDER:
The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam,having initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Areas (Land Transfer) Regulation 1 of 1959 (for short“Regulations 1 of 1959”) in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3.31gunts situated in Sy.No.192 of Padmati Narasapuram village, passedorders dated 1.5.2006 directing ejectment of the petitioner underSection 3(2) of Regulations 1 of 1959. The petitioner states that thesaid order was communicated on 26.10.2006 and questioning thesame she preferred an appeal before the 1[st] respondent. She alsosought for stay of operation of the order dated 1.5.2006 till thedisposal of the appeal. However, the 1[st] respondent-appellateauthority, failed to consider the same and, in the meanwhile, the 3[rd]respondent is taking steps to dispossess the petitioner in execution ofthe order of ejectment dated 1.5.2006. Hence, this writ petition.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for respondents 1to 3.
Since, admittedly, statutory appeal against the order of the 2[nd]respondent dated 1.5.2006 is pending before the 1[st] respondent, itwould be appropriate to maintain status quo obtaining as on today tillthe statutory appeal is disposed of.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writpetition is disposed of with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to disposeof the appeal pending on its file expeditiously following due process oflaw. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today as to the natureand possession of the land, which is the subject matter of the order ofthe 2[nd] respondent dated 1.5.2006, shall be maintained. No costs.
22[nd] December, 2006.Issue CC by tomorrow.Kgr ______________(G. ROHINI, J.)
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.26602 OF 2006
22[nd] December, 2006.
Between:
Yelabaka Kanthamma. .. Petitioner.
AndThe Project Officer, ITDA andAddl. Agent to the Government,(Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam,Khammam District and others. .. Respondents.