Telangana High Court
WP/39819/2012 of Yerrabothula Thimmappa Vs The Government of A.P. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, on 28 December 2012
RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.39819 of 2012 ORDER: The show cause notice dated 4.10.2012, issued by the 2nd respondent seeking to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.56-1 of Byadrahalli village, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District, is questioned in
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.39819 of 2012
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:
The show cause notice dated 4.10.2012, issued by the 2[nd]respondent seeking to evict the petitioner from the landadmeasuring Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.56-1 of Byadrahalli village,Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District, is questioned in this WritPetition as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles ofnatural justice. A consequential direction is sought to therespondents not to evict the petitioner from the land in question.
The impugned notice issued under Rule 3 of the AndhraPradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007does not even refer to the person to whom the land was assigned,and the basis on which the 2[nd] respondent has concluded that thepetitioner had purchased assigned lands. The basic jurisdictionalfacts, required to enable the petitioner to submit an effective replyto the notice issued under Rule 3, are not stated in the saidnotice.
When the matter came up on 27.12.2012, the LearnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) sought time toobtain instructions. Today, the Learned Government Pleaderwould fairly state that, since the notice is bereft of the basicjurisdictional facts, it would suffice if this Court were to grantliberty to the respondents to issue notice afresh, furnishing allfacts relevant for action being taken in terms of Act 9 of 1977,instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending on the file of thisCourt.
As the impugned notice is bereft of the basic jurisdictionalfacts, required for the petitioner to submit a reply thereto, it isaccordingly set aside. It is made clear that this order shall notpreclude the 2[nd] respondent from issuing notice afresh, inaccordance with law, and taking action against the petitioner underAct 9 of 1977 and the Rules made thereunder. The Writ Petitionis, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances,without costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shallalso stand disposed of ___________
28-12-2012
Note:C.C. by 3.1.2013B/oasp