Telangana High Court
WP/33532/2010 of Kanipati Pandavulu Vs The Additional Agent to the Government on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33532 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. Petitioner claims ownership and possession over the land admeasuring 0.56
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33532 of2010
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 learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for therespondents.
Petitioner claims ownership and possession over the landadmeasuring 0.56 hectares covered by Survey No.84/3 situated atIndukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. Onfiling complaint by the fourth respondent – Special Deputy Tahsildar(Tribal Welfare), Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District,proceedings were initiated by the second respondent – AgencyDivisional Officer, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, foreviction of the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled AreasLand Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of1970 and the second respondent by order, dated 27.07.2010, passedin L.T.R.P.No.155 of 2007, ordered for eviction of the petitioner anddirected the third respondent - Tahsildar, Devipatnam Mandal, EastGodavari District, to take the land into Government custody so as toassign the same to eligible tribals. It is stated that as against the saidorder, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the firstrespondent – Additional Agent to the Government,Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, on 13.09.2010 and suchappeal is pending. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though hehas filed application in the aforesaid appeal, seeking interim orders, noorders are passed on such application and the respondents are takingsteps for eviction of the petitioner.
As per the Regulation referred to above, against the order ofeviction, there is substantive remedy of appeal provided to the firstrespondent. When such remedy is availed by the petitioner by way ofappeal and an application is filed therein seeking interim orders, thereis no reason for not considering such application for this long time. Asmuch as the petitioner is claiming ownership and possession over thepetition schedule property and the appeal filed by him is pendingconsideration before the first respondent, I deem it appropriate to directthe first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioneras expeditiously as possible. Further, the order of eviction, dated27.07.2010, passed by the second respondent in L.T.R.P.No.155 of2007 shall remain suspended pending disposal of such appeal. Thereshall be a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner tocultivate the land in question till disposal of such appeal.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.No order as to costs.
_______________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
30[th] DECEMBER, 2010.kvni