Allowed

K. Harinatha reddy v. The Commissioner (Appeals)

Telangana HC30 Dec 2010WP/33471/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to declare inaction by the revisional authority in disposing of their stay petition illegal and direct disposal within three months. The court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously and maintain the status quo regarding land possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the revision petition within three months and maintain status quo of land possession.

K. Harinatha reddy Vs The Commissioner (Appeals) — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33471 of 2010

¶3

Date: 30.12.2010

¶4

Between :

¶5

K. Harinathareddy and others.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Commissioner (Appeals), O/o. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.33471 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶14

2. This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:

¶15

“…….Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent in not disposing of the stay petition filed along with Revision Petition No.V3/55/2010 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.246 extent of Ac.41.61 cents situated in Tiruchanur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupati, Chittoor District…….”

¶16

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2^nd respondent-

¶17

Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority under the

¶18

A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for brevity “the Act”), passed an order in proceedings No.R.Dis.G/1668/2009, dated 27.11.2009, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners. As against the said order, the petitioners have filed a revision under Section 14-A of the Act before the 1^st respondent-Commissioner of Appeals, O/o. the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who is the revisional authority. When the matter was posted on 28.12.2010, it was adjourned to 22.2.2011.

¶19

4. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction for disposal of the stay petition filed along with the revision petition. It is also submitted that all through the petitioners are having interim orders in their favour and they are in continuous possession of the land in question.

¶20

5. A perusal of the order, dated 27.11.2009, passed by the 2^nd respondent-appellate authority itself discloses that as against the said orders, revision lies before the 1^st respondentCommissioner of Appeals under Section 14-A of the Act.

¶21

6. Inasmuch as it is stated that the revision was already filed as early as in the month of February, 2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent-revisional authority to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. The respondents are further directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today with regard to possession of the land in question till disposal of the revision petition by the 1^st respondent. 7. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶23

30.12.2010.

¶24

NOTE: Issue C.C. in two days.

¶25

(B/O) Msr

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.33471 of 2010

¶28

30.12.2010

¶29

(Msr)

K. Harinatha reddy v. The Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Harinatha reddy v. The Commissioner (Appeals)

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

Reddeboina Saidulu, Vs The District Collector

C. Mahender Reddy Vs The District Collector

Akkineni Anjaneyulu, Vs The Primary Coop.Marketing Society

K. Venugopal Rao Vs The Regional Transport Authority

Sk. Bi Bi, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, represented by its

Akkena Simhachalam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Appellate Authority