Telangana High Court
WP/28395/2007 of A. Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.28395 and 28399 of 2007 Between: A.Sanjeeva Reddy and others. .. PETITIONERS and The District Collector and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.28395 and 28399 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since similar questions that arise
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
W.P.Nos.28395 and 28399 of 2007
Between:
A.Sanjeeva Reddy and others.
.. PETITIONERS
and
The District Collector and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
W.P.Nos.28395 and 28399 of 2007
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.
COMMON ORDER:
Since similar questions that arise for consideration in these writpetitions, the same are taken up together for disposal by way of commonorder.
It is the case of the petitioners that against the resumption orderspassed by the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, inproceedings No.B/1218/2005-2, dated 06-07-2005, the petitioners filedappeals along with stay applications before the 2[nd] respondent and the saidappeals have been numbered as B1/5096/07 and B1/5097/07 respectively. But, so far neither stay applications nor appeals have been disposed of. It isstated that pending disposal of the appeals, the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, is taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from thelands in question.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for therespondents submits that this Court while disposing of the earlier writpetitions filed by the petitioners i.e., W.P.Nos.16267 and 16268 of 2007, itwas noticed that the possession was already taken and, therefore, thequestion of dispossession does not arise.
As the appeals are pending, without expressing any opinion on themerits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the 2[nd]respondent to consider and dispose of the main appeals itself.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to consider and dispose of the appeals filed against the orders ofthe 3[rd] respondent, dated 06-07-2005, in proceedings No.B/1218/2005-2, inaccordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a periodof four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall beno order as to costs.
___________
31-12-2007