Telangana High Court
WP/28648/2008 of Penumatsa Venkata Satyavathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28648 of 2008 Between: Penumatsa Venkata Satyavathi W/o. Venkata Rama Raju
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28648 of 2008
Between:
Penumatsa Venkata Satyavathi W/o. Venkata Rama Raju Sarampeta Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District.
..... 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 the Government & Project Officer, I.T.D.A.Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.3 The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram,East Godavari District.
4 The Tahsildar, Addathegala Mandal, Addathegala, East GodavariDistrict.
5 Karu Chandra Rao, S/o. Suranna Sarampeta Village, Addathegala Mandal, 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 the2nd respondent in C.M.A.No.94 of 2005 dated 6.12.2008, as highlyillegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and in violation of principles of naturaljustice and consequently set aside 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 :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION No.28648 of 2008
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:
1 Initially fifth respondent filed LTRP No.50/99 under theprovisions of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of1959as amended by 1 of 1970 before the third respondent seekingejectment of the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.2.09 centsin Sy.No.18/5 in Sarampeta Village, Addateegala Mandal in EastGodavari District and after due enquiry, the third respondent passedan order dated 07.06.2002 in favour of the petitioner holding that thepossession of the petitioner over the said land is established bycogent documentary evidence such as Pattadar passbook, Adangalsand other records and ultimately dismissed the said LTRP No.50/99. Aggrieved thereby the fifth respondent carried the matter before thesecond respondent in C.M.A.No.94 of 2005, which was allowed on06.12.2008. Assailing the same, the petitioner in this Writ Petitionpreferred a revision before the first respondent and along with therevision, the petitioner also filed an application seeking suspension ofthe order passed by the second respondent. However, as no ordershave yet been passed on the said application, the petitionerapproached this court and filed the present Writ Petition apprehendingdispossession.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.
3 Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the presentWrit Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission as follows:
4 In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision pending before it within a periodof 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However,pending disposal of the same, the order passed by the secondrespondent in CMA No.129 of 2005 dated 02.12.2005 shall remainsuspended. No order as to costs.
29.12.2008kvsn
---------------------SRI T.G.K,J.
ADVANCE ORDER:
In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the firstrespondent to dispose of the revision pending before it within a periodof 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However,pending disposal of the same, the order passed by the secondrespondent in CMA No.129 of 2005 dated 02.12.2005 shall besuspended.
--------------------------
SRI T.G.K, J.
29.12.2008Note: Wire at party’s costB/o kvsn After sending the wire orderThe bundle may be sent toC.M. Section kvsn