Disposed

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC3 Jul 2008WP/14234/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging dispossession under A.P. (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation, the Court granted status quo pending the outcome of a pending revision. The petitioner was directed to continue in possession until the revisional authority passes appropriate orders or decides an interlocutory application.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained pending revision; writ disposed directing respondent to consider revision.

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju Vs Government of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14234 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju S/o. Narasimharaju R/o. West Vipparru, Pentapadu Mandal, W.G. District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Agent to the Government, District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3 Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, West Godavari District. 4 Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, West Godavari District.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction, declaring the proposed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land measuring Ac.5.24 cents in R.S.No.46/2 situated at P. Narayanapuram Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, W.G. District, pending disposal of Revision on the file of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and for a consequential order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land measuring Ac.5.24 cents in R.S.No.46/2 situated at P. Narayanapuram Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, W.G. District, consequent to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in S.R.A.No.1/2007(F2), dt. 21.06.2008 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent and to pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 14234 OF 2008

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju with a prayer to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess him from the land, pending his revision before the 1^st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unfair.

¶20

2. The petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.5-24 cents comprising R.S No.46/2 situated P.Narayanapuram village of Jeelugimilli Mandal, West Godavari District. Proceedings have been initiated against him for ejectment on the ground of his occupation is contrary to the provisions of A.P. ( Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970. The primary authority ordered for his ejectment. Thereupon, he filed an appeal as provided under Regulation 1/1959 as amended by Regulation 1/1970. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the primary authority. The petitioner filed revision before the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-1^st Respondent. Pending revision, the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, West Godavari District is contemplating to dispossess him from the land in dispute. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for Respondents. 4. Indisputably the revision filed by the petitioner is pending with the 1^st Respondent.

¶21

5. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1^st Respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. There shall be status quo with regard to the possession of the land in dispute pending the revision or till the disposal of the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner before the revisional authority, whichever is earlier. No order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶23

3^rd July, 2008. Note: C.C.in two days B/o KM

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 14234 OF 2008

¶26

3 rd July, 2008.

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

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

Smt. D.Jaya Vs G.H.M.C

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

A. Prabhavathi Vs The Competent Office, Rep. by its Executive Engineer,Aphb.

Birender Kumar Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Defence

G. Sanjeev Kumar, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nizmabad

Sri Abburi Singaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its