Disposed

Smt. Rukya Bee, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC16 Jun 2005WP/12791/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a stay against dispossession, the High Court held that since the petitioner sought interim relief for re-delivery of possession from the appellate authority itself, this Court could not issue positive orders against respondents to protect alleged possession and thus directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellate authority (2nd Respondent) to dispose of the appeal within six weeks.

Smt. Rukya Bee, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12791 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Rukya Bee, W/o. Ahmet Hussain, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Nelki Venkatapur village, Dandepalli Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2. The Agent to the Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor, Adilabad District. 3. The Special Deputy Collecltor (Tribal Welfare), Utnoor, Adilabad District.

¶12

4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dandepalli Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to

¶15

issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac. 2.83 cents in Sy.No.204 of Nelki Venkatapur village of Dandepalli Mandal , Adilabad District in pursuance of the orders passed by the 3^rd Respondent in Case No. TWA1/40/2004, datred 29-12-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above land pending disposal of the statutory appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstanes of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the inaction of the second respondent in passing orders on the interim application filed before him along with the main appeal, which was filed against the order of the third respondent, who ordered ejectment of the petitioner.

¶18

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of Ac.02-33 gts. of land in Sy.No.204 of Nelki Venkatapur village, Dandepalli Mandal, Adilabad District. The third respondent initiated proceedings at the instance of a third party alleging that the petitioner, who is a non-tribal, is in possession of the land in contravention of A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (for short ‘the Regulations’). The third respondent, therefore, took up the matter and after conducting necessary enquiry, passed orders on 29-12-2004 holding that the petitioner is in possession of the land in contravention of the Regulations, and accordingly ordered ejectment of the petitioner and to restore the land to the Government custody. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, the agent to the Government, along with an interim application seeking to re-deliver the possession of the land pending disposal of the appeal. As no orders have been passed in the said interim application, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

¶19

3. Heard both sides and considered the material on record.

¶20

4. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land and the 4^th respondent is trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioner by virtue of the orders of the third respondent. Therefore, sought for stay of dispossession.

¶21

5. The learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner himself filed an interim application before the appellate authority seeking a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to deliver back the possession of the land in question. In the light of the interim relief sought for before the appellate authority, the learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner is not in possession of the land and therefore, he is not entitled to for any order to protect his alleged possession.

¶22

6. In view of the interim relief sought for by the petitioner himself before the appellate authority of re-delivery of possession of the land, this Court cannot give any positive orders against the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner.

¶23

7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate authority, the second respondent herein, to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

S.ANANDA REDDY, J

¶26

16^th June, 2005

¶27

Note:

¶28

Furnish C.C. within three days.

¶29

B/o. SKM

¶30

¶31

1. The District Collector,

¶32

Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶33

2. The Agent to the Government and

¶34

Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor, Adilabad District.

¶35

3. The Special Deputy Collecltor (Tribal Welfare), Utnoor, Adilabad District.

¶36

4. The Mandal Revenue Officer,

¶37

Dandepalli Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶38

5. Two CCS to the G.P for Social Welfare, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P.,

¶39

Hyderabad.

¶40

6. Two CD copies

Smt. Rukya Bee, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukya Bee, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Anjaiah, Vs Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

K. Raju, E-406018, Vs The Apsrtc

Smt. Vanthala Atchayamma D/o Late Pappula Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh, rep by Secretary, Social

Katu Bheemaiah, Vs The District Collector

Yerupalli Dhanraju, Vs The District Employment Exchange Office

Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Vs The Secretary