Telangana High Court
WP/28025/2008 of Kunche Sanyasi alias Venkata Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28025 of 2008 Between: 1 Kunche Sanyasi alias Venkata Ramana S/o. Appanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28025 of 2008
Between:
1 Kunche Sanyasi alias Venkata Ramana S/o. Appanna R/o. Pidathamamidi Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East GodavariDistrict.
2 Kunche Appanna S/o. Sanyasi (Died)
R/o. Pidathamamidi Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East GodavariDistrict.
.....
PETITIONER(S)
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 Government, Rampachodavaram, EastGodavari District.
3 The Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare),Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.
4 The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), Gangavaram,East Godavari District.
5 The Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the HighCourt will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the 1st respondent in not passing orders in Revision Petitionand further declare the order of the 2nd respondent in C.M.A.No.75 of2005 dated 06.12.2008, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper,and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-a-side the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFAREThe Court made the following :
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 has been filed by the petitioners, whoare two in number, assailing the inaction of the 1[st] respondent inconsidering the revision filed by them against the order dated06.12.2008 passed in CMA No.75 of 2005.
The petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of Acs.5-82 cents of land comprising Sy.No.26/2 ofPidathamamidi Village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The 4[th] respondent-Special Deputy Tahsildar, TribalWelfare, Gangavaram suo-moto initiated proceedings and filed acase in LTRP No.91 of 2003 under Section 3 of Andhra PradeshSchedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amendedby Regulation 1 of 1970. The 3[rd] respondent-Special DeputyCollector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, after an elaborateenquiry, dismissed the said LRTP No.91 of 2003, on the groundthat their possession is not in contravention of the provisions ofAndhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. Questioning thesame, the 4[th] respondent filed CMA No.75 of 2005 before the 2[nd]respondent-Additional Agent to Government,Rampachodavaram. The appellate authority, without assigningany reasons, allowed the appeal filed by the 4[th] respondent anddirected the 5[th] respondent to evict the petitioners from the petition schedule land. Aggrieved by the same, they filedrevision before the 1[st] respondent and also moved stayapplication. There being no action by the 1[st] respondent on therevision as well as the stay application, they approached thisCourt invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersand the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfareappearing on behalf of R1 to R5.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitsthat the respondents are contemplating to dispossess thepetitioners from the land in dispute pending revision.
The factual aspect of the petitioners filing revision beforethe 1[st] respondent is not in dispute.
Arguments
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the 1[st] respondent to consider the revision filed by thepetitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pendingconsideration of the revision, the respondents shall not interferewith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land inquestion. No costs.
__________
(B.O) rkk