Allowed

S. Parvez Saheb, Chittoor Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2022WP/15206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a notice under the ROR Act. It held that the notice could not be acted upon as the 4th respondent had suppressed the pendency of a civil suit (O.S. No. 35 of 2014).

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Impugned notice No. G/2975/2015 set aside; Respondents directed to proceed based on the result of O.S. No. 35 of 2014.

S. Parvez Saheb, Chittoor Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.15206 of 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“…. to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned notice No.G/2975/2015 dt.23.03.2015 from the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor and after perusing it quash the same by declaring it as arbitrary, unjust, lacks jurisdiction, contrary to Section 5B of Act No.26 of 1971 and the Rules made thereunder and with all other consequential benefits....”

¶6

When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this court

¶7

passed an Interim Order on 02.06.2015 as follows:

¶8

‘ Prima facie, it appears that the 4^th respondent while approaching the 2^nd respondent by way of appeal has not disclosed about pendency of O.S.No.35 of 2014, which is filed by her before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. Unless the petitioner succeeds in the said suit, prima facie the relief under the ROR Act cannot be granted. Hence, issue notice before admission.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on the 4^th respondent and file proof of service.

¶11

There shall be Interim stay of all further proceedings in ROR Appeal No.G/2976/2015 for a period of Six weeks.’

¶12

¶13

Heard Sri.V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶14

It appears from the Interim Order of this court that the 4^th respondent while preferring appeal before the 2^nd respondent suppressed the fact of pendency of O.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, filed by her.

¶15

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned notice No.G/2975/2015, dated 23.03.2015 and the respondent-authorities are directed to initiate any further course of action, only basing on the result of the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶18

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶19

Date : 16.11.2022 AVTP

¶20

¶21

242

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.15206 of 2015

¶24

Date : 16.11.2022

¶25

AVTP

S. Parvez Saheb, Chittoor Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Parvez Saheb, Chittoor Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

B. Ramalingadu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Thimmaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Salivahana Sangam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanke Pullaiah, Vs Chunchu Narayanamma