On a single bench, three writ petitions challenging eviction proceedings were disposed of by staying dispossession and directing the respondent to consider explanations submitted by petitioners within four weeks.
Stay on dispossession; directions to consider explanations submitted within four weeks; related WPMPs disposed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.30573, 30580 & 30590 of 2010
Date : 7-12-2010
W.P.No.30573/2010 Between : Ramulu s/o.late Sunkanna .. Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Sri CH.Ravinder Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Mir Masood Khan, Standing counsel for Wakf Board Counsel for respondent No.2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
The Court made the following :
COMMON ORDER:
As common questions of facts and law arise in these Writ Petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.
These Writ Petitions are filed for mandamus declaring proceedings dated 29-6-2010 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Sri CH.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that respondent No.1 has ordered for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners but they failed to submit explanations to the same. The petitioners have however pleaded that no such notices have been served on them and they were denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is their further case that the lands are private belonging to them and that Occupancy Rights Certificates were issued by the competent authority under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955.
In the light of the above pleadings, I am of the opinion that the petitioners deserve an opportunity of putting forth their case. If the petitioners succeed in convincing respondent No.1 that in respect of the same land they were granted Occupancy Rights Certificates, there is a likelihood of respondent No.1 dropping further action for eviction of the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the
following terms :
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP Nos.38937/2010, 38945/2010 and 38956/2010 are disposed of as infructuous.
____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J
Date : 7-12-2010
AM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners seeking eviction proceedings require a specific opportunity to submit explanations.
Whether eviction proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of show cause notice explanations.
Ramulu s/o.late Sunkanna
Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
