Telangana High Court
WP/38634/2013 of H.Ashok Vs District Collector, on 30 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38634 of 2013 Date:30.12.2013 Between: H.Ashok, S/o H.Balappa ..... Petitioner And: The District Collector, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.38634 of 2013
Date:30.12.2013
Between: H.Ashok, S/o H.Balappa
And:The District Collector,Hyderabad and three others.
..... Petitioner
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Sanjeeva ReddyCounsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside notice in L.R.No.B/1332/2013, dated 11.11.2013 ofrespondent No.3.
At the hearing, Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, submitted that subsequent tothe filing of this Writ Petition, respondent No.3 haspassed an eviction order giving time till today for vacationof the premises bearing Municipal No.17-2-862/1/A,Madannapet, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad. Hesubmitted that his client is prepared to file an appealunder Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh LandEncroachment Act, 1905. He has, however, requestedthat in view of the urgency involved, respondent No.3may be directed not to evict the petitioner from the said premises for a reasonable time to enable his client to filean appeal and secure an appropriate interim order.
In view of the above submissions of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed ofwith liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appealbefore respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is directed notto give effect to the eviction order for a period of onemonth to enable the petitioner to get an appropriateinterim order in the proposed appeal.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.48017 of 2013 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDYREDDY
30[th]December, 2013DR