Allowed

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Dec 2010WP/31185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that an order passed without prior notice violates natural justice and the Wakf Act. It was quashed in substance, treated as a notice, and directed that dispossession be stayed until a final order is communicated after considering the petitioners' explanation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is treated as a notice; the petitioners are permitted to submit an explanation within four weeks; no dispossession is allowed until a final order is communicated.

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.31185 of 2010

¶3

Date : 13-12-2010

¶4

Between : Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao and others .. Petitioners

¶5

and

¶6

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for petitioners : Sri G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1, 3 & 5 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 4 : Sri Shafat Ahmed Khan, Standing counsel for Wakf Board

¶8

The Court made the following :

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing orders dated 22-10-2010 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

I have heard Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 and Sri Shafat Ahmed Khan, Standing counsel for Wakf Board representing respondent Nos.2 and 4.

¶12

From a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that prior notice was not issued to the petitioners before passing the said orders. The impugned order therefore suffers from not only violation of principles of natural justice but also the procedure prescribed under Section 52 of Wakf Act 1995 r/w. Rule 22 of A.P. Wakf Rules 2000. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The parties are directed to treat the impugned order as notice and the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanation to the same within four weeks from today. On receipt of the explanation along with material, if any filed by the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall consider the same, pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioners. Till the passing of such final orders and communication of the same to the petitioners, they shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question.

¶13

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.39683/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J

¶16

Date : 13-12-2010 AM

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Y. Ramachandra Reddy Vs The District Collector

D. Yallamma Vs The District Registrar

Smt. a. Leela Vs The Joint Collector

Smt. T. Hemalatha Vs The District Collecor

Erukala (S.T.) Sangam (Regd.No.4622/93) Vs The District Collector

Sri Ambavaram Chenna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its