Disposed

Chataparthi Venkateswara Rao v. The District Collector

Telangana HC1 Jul 2009WP/12965/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order resuming agricultural land provided as a pathway for neighboring farmers while an appeal against the resumption was pending. The court held that since no interlocutory relief was sought before the appellate authority and the appeal was filed recently, specific injunctive relief could not be granted. However, the court directed the appellate authority to dispo

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Respondents directed to consider expeditious disposal of pending appeal within three months; No order on costs.

Chataparthi Venkateswara Rao Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12965 of 2009

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chataparthi Venkateswara Rao S/o.Yedukondalu R/o.Madhavaram, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The District Collector, West Godavari Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District.

¶9

3 The Tahsildar, Koyyalagudem, West Godavari District.

¶10

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

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 appropriate Writ, order or direction:- (i) Declaring that the action of the 3rd respondent herein in taking steps to form Road-way through Ac.4-00 of land of the petitioner in R.S.No.12/1 of Kanakadripuram Village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, when the appeal dt. 13.5.2009 submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent through R.P.Ad. against the order of the 3rd respondent dt. 10.2.2009 made in Roc.No.557/2008(DT) is pending, is highly arbitrary and illegal. (ii) Directing the 3rd respondent not to implement his above said order and interfere in any manner with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said land of the petitioner untill the above appeal is disposed of by the 2nd respondent herein. (iii) Directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the above said appeal of the petitioner according to law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and permitting him to produce any evidence both oral and documentary. (iv) Directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for acting arbitrarily and harassing the petitioner. (v) Allowing the Writ Petition with costs and (vi) Pass such other and further orders.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

ORAL ORDER:

¶16

The petitioner was assigned Ac. 4.00 of agricultural land in R.S.No. 12/1 of Kanakadripuram village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District as an Ex-service man, during 1996. On the ground that there was a pre-existing pathway through the land assigned to the petitioner and about 200 Farmers of Ponguturu, Kannayagudem and Yadavolu villages have agricultural lands and they used to ingress and egress to their lands through the pathway and for transportation of their agricultural produce, the 3^rd respondent initiated proceedings for resumption of an extent of 0.29 cents out of Ac.4.00 assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner lodged objections and thereafter by the proceedings dt. 10.2.2009, the 3^rd respondent passed an order resuming an extent of 0.29 cents out of Ac. 4.00 assigned for the purpose of providing a pathway to the other agricultural lands and for ingress egress to the fields. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2^nd respondent on 14.5.2009.

¶17

From the material available on record in this writ petition, it appears that the petitioner did not file any application for interlocutory relief in the appeal filed before the 2^nd respondent. Asserting that the 3^rd respondent is taking steps to form the pathway while the petitioner’s appeal is pending, the writ petition is filed.

¶18

As the petitioner has not chosen to file an application for

¶19

interlocutory relief before the 2^nd respondent, he cannot make out a grievance that no interlocutory relief was granted by the 2^nd respondent. As the appeal was preferred only on 14.5.2009, the petitioner cannot even complain that the appeal is not disposed of expeditiously. Hence, no relief in specie could be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶20

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2^nd respondent may consider expeditiously disposing of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 14.5.2009, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned G.P. for Assignment. No order as to costs.

¶22

___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1.7.2009.

¶23

KRB.

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 12965 of 2009

¶26

Dated: 1.7.2009.

Chataparthi Venkateswara Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chataparthi Venkateswara Rao 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

Bala Prabhakara Rao Vs The State of A.P

Andhra Ball-Badminton Association, Regd.No.545/2004 Vs Ball Badminton Federation of India., A-15, Chandra Mahal

P.Muniswami Reddy Vs The State of A.P

Smt. Zahurunnissa Begum, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion

Shaik Iqbal Vs The Grearter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

B.Sita Rama Murthy Vs The Government of Ap