Disposed

Vempati Nageswara Rao v. The Additional Agent to the Governemnt

Telangana HC2 Jun 2009WP/10784/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner challenged eviction orders in Scheduled Area land. The court stayed the eviction to protect possession until the pending revision petition was decided on merits, directing the government to decide it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Stay on eviction; directive to Government to dispose of pending revision within three months; maintenance of status quo.

Vempati Nageswara Rao Vs The Additional Agent to the… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10784 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

Vempati Nageswara Rao S/o.Papa Rao, R/o.Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Additional Agent to the Government, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.

¶10

2 The Agency Divisional Officer, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District.

¶11

3 The Tahsildar, Gokavaram, East Godavari District.

¶12

4 Puttapalli Ramana S/o. Not known to the petitioner, R/o.Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶13

5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (LTR-1) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from his lands to an extent of Hec.0.97 cents in Sy.No.151/4 situated at Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District in pursuance of the order passed by the 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.10/2008 dated 13.04.2009, as highly illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above mentioned lands pending disposal of the revision filed before the 5th respondent in the interest of justice and to pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.10784 of 2009

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of 0.97 hectors of land situated in Sy.No.151/4 of Indukurupeta village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari district.

¶22

Having initiated the proceedings under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 the second respondent, by order dated 22-10-2007, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question holding that the petitioner who is a non-tribal has encroached into the said land.

¶23

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which was also dismissed by order dated 13-04-2009. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the 5^th respondent-Government along with an application for stay of eviction. Alleging that the 5^{t h} respondent failed to consider his Revision Petition and no orders have been passed even on his application for stay and in the meanwhile, the respondents are taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

¶25

Admittedly, the Revision Petition arising out of the order of ejectment passed by the second respondent is pending before the 5^th respondent. Hence, it would be appropriate to protect the possession of the petitioner till the statutory revision is considered and decided on merits.

¶26

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ

¶27

Petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner, following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained as regards the nature and possession of the land in question. No costs

¶28

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶29

Dt.02.06.2009 PN/KH

Vempati Nageswara Rao v. The Additional Agent to the Governemnt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vempati Nageswara Rao v. The Additional Agent to the Governemnt

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

K.Veera Babu, Vs Andhra Bank

M/s. Granules India Limited, paracetamol Division, Vs The Commissioner of Labour Government of A.P.

B.Appala Raju Vs The Andhra Bank

Punjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Management Vs Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (Huda)

St. Marys Educational Society, Vs Government of a.P., rep by Principal Secretary

Ananya Panigrahi Minor Rep. by hier Father Vs The Secretary