Telangana High Court
WP/28317/2007 of Paul Raj Engineering College, Rep.by its Secretary Vs The Project officer and Additional Agent to on 28 December 2007
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :28317 of 2007 DATED:28-12-2007 Between: Paul Raj Engineering College, rep.by its Secretary and Correspondent S.Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Project Officer and Additional Agent to Government Integrated Tribal Development
@#@#@#@#@#@#@
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO :28317 of 2007DATED:28-12-2007
Between:
Paul Raj Engineering College, rep.by its Secretary and CorrespondentS.Srinivasa Rao
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Project Officer and Additional Agent to Government Integrated TribalDevelopment Agency Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and 3 others.
.....RESPONDENTS
@#@#@#@#@#@#@
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Social Welfare.
This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way ofmandamus to declare the action of the appellate authority under theprovisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 (for brevity ‘the Regulation’) in not disposing of the appeal/stay petition which was filed against the order of evictiondated 03-08-2007 in L.T.R.Case No.10/BCM/2007 passed by thesecond respondent-Agency Divisional Officer and Sub-Collector,Bhadrachalam, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner claims ownership and possession over anextent of Ac.0.30 cents of land covered by Sy.No.59/41 ofBhadrachalam Village and Mandal in Khammam District. Hesubmitted that the said piece of land is in possession of thepetitioner from the year 1955. The primary authority, i.e., AgencyDivisional Officer and Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalam, in exercise ofpowers under Section 3 2(a) of the Regulation, ordered eviction ofthe petitioner to take the land into Government custody and toassign the same to eligible tribals.
As against the order of eviction passed by the AgencyDivisional Officer it is stated that an appeal is preferred by thepetitioner on 24-10-2007 along with an application for interimorders. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the appellateauthority is not considering neither the application for interim ordersnor the appeal. But on the other hand, the respondents are takingsteps for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule land.
Prima-facie, it appears that there is no reason for the appellate authority in not considering and passing orders on theapplication of the petitioner for interim orders. Since it claims thatthe petitioner is in possession of the petition schedule land rightfrom the year 1955 and as he has already filed appeal which is asubstantive remedy available under the Regulation itself, I disposeof the writ petition directing the first respondent appellate authorityto dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. It is furtherdirected that the respondents shall not take any steps for eviction ofthe petitioner pursuant to order of eviction dated 03-08-2007 in L.T.R.Case No.10/BCM/2007 passed by the secondrespondent-Agency Divisional Officer and Sub-Collector,Bhadrachalam, till disposal of the appeal.
Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of atthe stage of admission. No order as to costs.
__________________
28[th] December, 2007
NOTE:Furnish C.C. by two days.B/o.SKM