Telangana High Court
WP/27037/2007 of Tammisetty Sanjeeva Rao, Vs The Agency Divisional Officer, on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27037 of 2007 Dated 27th December, 2007 Between Tammisetty Sanjeeva Rao …Petitioner and The Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem Khammam District, and, ors …Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27037
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 27037 of 2007
Between
Dated 27[th] December, 2007
Tammisetty Sanjeeva Rao
…Petitioner
and
The Agency Divisional Officer, KothagudemKhammam District, and, ors …Respondents.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION NO :27037 of 2007
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 seeking Writ of Mandamus to declarethe action of the second respondent in not disposing of the statutoryappeal filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction dated 20-10-2001 passed in LTR Case No. 41/95/Singareni by the first respondent,as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the landadmeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas covered by Sy.No.24 of Usirikayalapallirevenue village, Singareni Mandal in Khammam District. It is statedthat the said piece of land was purchased by the petitioner on 3-12-1967 from its previous owner, by name, Smt. Banooth Patni, a non- tribal. The Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District,first respondent herein, has initiated proceedings against the petitionerand two others under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land TransferRegulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970 and whiledropping the proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 therein, thesaid primary authority passed the order of eviction dated 20-10-2001against the petitioner in LTR Case No.41/95/Singareni. It is stated thatas against the order of eviction, the petitioner has preferred appealbefore the Agent to Government and subsequently the same wastransferred to the Additional Agent to Government (Project Officer,ITDA), Bhadrachalam, second respondent herein and the said appealwas numbered as CMA.No.16 of 2003. It is the grievance of thepetitioner that though the appeal was filed as early as in the year 2003,the same is not being disposed of and on the other hand, therespondents are taking steps to enforce the order of eviction.
When the matter came up on 18-12-2007 and 24-12-2007, thelearned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, soughttime to get instructions. Today, when the matter is taken up, thelearned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitsthat the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pendingconsideration.
As much as the petitioner has purchased the land in the year1967 and since then he is in uninterrupted continuous possession ofthe said land, and, further, the appeal preferred by the petitioner ispending consideration, I dispose of the Writ Petition, directing thesecond respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal inCMA.No.16 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, by giving prior notice in writing and notifying thedate of hearing, to the petitioner. Till the disposal of the appeal by theappellate authority, the respondents shall not enforce the order ofeviction dated 20-10-2001 passed in LTR Case No.41/95/Singareniand allow the petitioner to be in possession of the said land.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.No order as to costs.
DATE: 27-12-2007.Msnr.
----------------------------------
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY