Dismissed

Ch.Satti Raju v. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department

Telangana HC29 Apr 2011WP/14740/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an eviction order allowing him to vacate within one month. The High Court dismissed the writ petition but, considering the petitioner's age and business nature, extended the vacating period by four months.

What did the court decide?

Time for vacating the premises extended by four months until 31st August 2011, with undertaking to vacate and continue renting.

Ch.Satti Raju Vs The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14740 OF 2011

¶3

BETWEEN:

¶4

1. Ch. Satti Raju

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

And

¶7

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and others.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Endowments

¶10

The Court made the following order:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the orders in O.A.No.2180 of 2010 dated 4.02.2011 passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry submitted proposals under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for eviction of the petitioner from the site occupied by him in R.S.No.7665 of Kakinada, on the ground that the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the said site even after the expiry of lease period on 31.08.2003. The Tribunal considered the matter after due notice to the petitioner herein, and based on the evidence, recorded a finding that the petitioner has become an encroacher after the expiry of lease, and accordingly allowed the O.A by orders dated 4.02.2011 directing the petitioner to vacate and handover the premises within a period of one month. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted..

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is aged about 80 years, has been conducting business for more than 50 years and eking out his livelihood. It is his submission that because of the nature of business being conducted by the petitioner, it is difficult for him to identify and shift the business to any other location within one month time granted by the Tribunal. The learned counsel therefore prays for reasonable time of four months.

¶15

The learned Standing Counsel has no objection for the said proposal.

¶16

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However the time for vacating the premises is extended by four months. The petitioner shall file an undertaking that he would vacate the premises on or before 31^st August 2011 and that he would continue to pay the rents until then.

¶17

NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29^th April, 2011 Js. Note: C.C. in 2 days

Ch.Satti Raju v. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Satti Raju v. The Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department

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

P. Hemalatha, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Y. Surya Bhagavan, Vs The Apgenco, rep. by its Managing Director

J.Surya Prakash Vs Harti Govind Agarwal

Zahab Begum Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., a Company incorporate Vs The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

Bhupathiraju Buchi Venkatapathiraju Vs Bhupathiraju Pushpavathi