Telangana High Court
WP/38679/2013 of Volladapu Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38679 OF 2013 Dated 30th December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. Volladapu Lakshmi and two others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38679 OF 2013
Dated 30thDecember 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Volladapu Lakshmi and two others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38679 OF 2013
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside theproceedings in Case No.E1/3057/2012 dated 26.11.2013 ofrespondent No.2 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by thepetitioners purportedly under Section 4(2)(a) of the A.P. AssignedLands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (“the Act” for short).
During the hearing, this Court has noticed a fallacy in theapproach of the parties, in that, the cancellation of assignments madeto the petitioners/their predecessors was on the ground that theassignees have failed to bring the lands under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment. It is no one’s case that theassigned lands were alienated in violation of the provisions of the Act. However, the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have proceededon the assumption that the provisions of the said Act apply. Thepetitioners have, in fact, filed an appeal under Section 4-A (2) of theAct before respondent No.2. One redeeming feature in the case is thateven under the Board Standing Orders {BSO 15(15)}, respondent No.2 is the appellate authority to examinethe correctness or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, even though the appeal was filed under awrong provision, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 iswell within his jurisdiction.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has notdisputed that under BSO 15(18), his clients have a remedy of revisionpetition before the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the availabilityof alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition foradjudication on merits.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to thepetitioners to avail the remedy of revision. To facilitate the petitionersto avail such remedy and to protect their interest till they file anapplication for interim relief in such revision petition, respondent No.4is directed not to dispossess the petitioners for a period of one month.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48072 of2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J