Disposed

Sri.Gonuguntla Ramanjulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011WP/7415/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his stay petition regarding land acquisition proceedings. The court directed the District Collector to dispose of the revision appeal within three months and maintained the status quo pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the revision/appeal within three months; status quo maintained until disposal.

Sri.Gonuguntla Ramanjulu, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7415 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings in ROC.No.E7/3461/08, dated 10.03.2008, passed by the office of the 1^st respondent, whereby the stay petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay of operation of the proceedings dated 21.05.2007 of the 3^rd respondent was rejected, as illegal and violation of principles of natural justice, and seeks a consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the land to an extent of Ac.4.20 cents in Sy.No.76/2 of Venkatappa Kota Revenue village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶5

The petitioner states that in the year 1978, he was granted DKT patta in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.4.20 cents in Sy.No.76/2 of Venkatappa Kota Revenue village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, and since then, he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, vide proceedings dated 26.06.2007, the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, Madanapalle, cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the subject land was required by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal along with stay petition before the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Pending disposal of the appeal before the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner filed a suit being O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, along with I.A.No.135 of 2008, seeking temporary injunction against the

¶6

respondents, and obtained status quo order. Subsequently, by order dated 16.02.2008, the 2^nd respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred revision along with stay petition before the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Chittoor. However, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, the Joint Collector rejected the stay petition, by order dated 10.03.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the status quo order passed in I.A.No.135 of 2008 in O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and pending consideration of the revision before the 1^st respondent, the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the subject lands. Hence, this writ petition.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the impugned order and other material placed before this Court, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose of the revision/appeal filed by the petitioner (if not already disposed of) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till disposal of the revision/appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. No order as to costs.

¶8

_____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶9

24.02.2011 v v

Sri.Gonuguntla Ramanjulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Gonuguntla Ramanjulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gummadi Eswara NarayanaRao Vs The District Collector,Machilipatnam

Prathi Koteswara Rao Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Kalidindi Ravi Vs The District Collector

Kothapeta Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Amar Singh, Vs the A.P. Power Generation Corportion Ltd.

Chinnam Kishtaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer