Allowed

Noothanapati Satyanarayana v. The Additional Agent to Government and the Project officer

Telangana HC6 Jun 2012WP/16361/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inordinate delay by an appellate authority in deciding applications for condonation of delay and stay regarding an ejectment order. The High Court directed the appellate authority to consider these applications within two weeks without adjudicating merits at this stage.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and interim stay and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Noothanapati Satyanarayana Vs The Additional Agent to… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.16361 of 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Noothanapati Satyanarayana

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The Additional Agent to Government and the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District & another.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

This Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.16361 of 2012

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not passing any orders in the appeal filed by the petitioner on 12.03.2012 against the orders, dated 31.05.2011, of Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, in LTR Case No.108/07/KMPL.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents.

¶18

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.10 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.215/2 of Pinjaramadugu Village, Kamepaly Mandal, Khammam District, having inherited the same from his forefathers and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the Agency Divisional Officer conducted a suo motu enquiry and passed order, dated 31.05.2011, directing ejectment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 12.03.2012 along with an application to condone delay of 223 days in preferring the appeal and also another application seeking stay of the order of ejectment.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said applications have not been taken up by the first respondent even though they are filed nearly three months ago and in the meanwhile the Mandal Revenue Officer is taking steps to evict the petitioner from the schedule land.

¶20

As the matter is pending before the statutory appellate authority, it is considered inappropriate to go into the merits of the case in this

¶21

proceedings. In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate to direct the first respondent to take up the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and also for interim stay of operation of the impugned ejectment order, consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶24

________________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J

¶25

Date: 06.06.2012 ES

Noothanapati Satyanarayana v. The Additional Agent to Government and the Project officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noothanapati Satyanarayana v. The Additional Agent to Government and the Project officer

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

Sri a. Subramanian, Vs M/s Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation

M/s. Sitapuram Power Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee

Kalagara Venkata Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Cipl Easy Cabs Drivers Union, Rajiv Gandhi International Vs Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Nalla Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Social

Nuthakki Rajender Prasad Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation