Telangana High Court
WP/25625/2006 of Kasireddy Hanumaiah , Hanuma Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25625 of 2006 Dated: 26.12.2006 Between: Kasireddy Hanumaiah @ Hanuma Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.25625 of 2006 ORDER: The
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.25625 of 2006
Dated: 26.12.2006
Between:
Kasireddy Hanumaiah @ Hanuma Reddy.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
WRIT PETITION No.25625 of 2006
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:
The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.80cents in survey No.7/1 situated at Jangalapalli Village ofPeddacherlapalli Mandal (P.C. Mandal) in Prakasam District. It appearsrespondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 alleging that hewas obstructed to enter said land by the petitioner. Respondent No.2entertained the appeal and by order/proceedings in D. Dis.2985/2002,dated 05.08.2006, allowed the appeal directing respondent No.3 topermit respondent No.4 to cultivate said land. Aggrieved by the same,the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 on09.10.2006 along with an application for stay of the order of respondentNo.2. As no orders are passed thereon, alleging that there is threat ofdispossession, instant writ petition is filed seeking a direction torespondent No.1 to dispose of the application for stay expeditiously.
The matter has been coming up for preliminary hearing from08.12.2006. Though sufficient time was granted, the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (General-A) did not receive anyinstructions from respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, in spite of keeping thematter, interests of justice would be served by directing respondent No.1to pass appropriate orders on the application for stay filed by thepetitioner along with the appeal filed against the order of respondentNo.2 dated 05.08.2006. This exercise may be completed within a periodof ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, isaccordingly disposed of. No costs.
_____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
26[th] December, 2006ghn