Disposed

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC9 Feb 2009WP/2210/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in three writ petitions challenging the resumption of assigned lands. Court directed that petitioners be not dispossessed during the pendency of appeals and shall not alter land features.

What did the court decide?

Directing that petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land covered by the common order dated 10.09.2007 during the pendency of appeals and shall not alter physical features or create third par

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, Vs The Revenue… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 2209, 2210 & 2211 of 2009

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rurural Mandal, 2^nd respondent in all these writ petitions initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). He issued show cause notices to the petitioners and on a consideration of the explanation submitted by them, he passed a common order dated 10.09.2007 directing resumption of the lands purchased by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed three separate appeals before the 1^st respondent herein together with the applications for stay. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 1^st respondent has not passed any orders in the applications so far and in the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent is trying to dispossess them from the lands.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Feeling aggrieved by the common order, dated 10.09.2007, the petitioners availed the remedy under

¶7

Section 4-A of the Act. They also filed applications for stay. If the petitioners are dispossessed from the lands in question, even while the appeals are pending, nothing remains to be decided in the appeals. The interest of the State can be protected by directing that the petitioners shall not alter or otherwise modify the features of the land.

¶8

Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land covered by the common order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the 2^nd respondent, during the pendency of the appeals before the 1^st respondent. It is also directed that the petitioners shall not alter the physical features or create third party rights during that period. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

_________ 09.02.2009

¶10

Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 2209, 2210, 2211 of 2009

¶13

Date: 09.02.2009

¶14

JSU

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kilari Ramachandranaidu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Jagarapu Chinna Venkata Ramana Vs The Sub Registrar, Anakapalle

Mohd Zafarullaha Khan Vs The District Collector

Pothuganti Papaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

T. Shekar Reddy, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator

Petlu Narasimhulu Vs The District Collector