Allowed

Badireddy Bulivenkann v. The Additional Agent to the Government

Telangana HC11 Jun 2012WP/17019/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to declare an eviction order under AP Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 illegal. The court held that since the matter was pending before the statutory revisional authority, it could not examine merits. It directed the respondent to decide the stay application within six weeks and maintain the status quo ante.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent to decide the stay application within six weeks and maintain the status quo regarding possession of the land.

Badireddy Bulivenkann Vs The Additional Agent to the… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17019 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land of an extent of Ac.1.24 cents in Sy.No.395/1 of Indukuru village, Devipatnam mandal, East Godavari District, pursuant to the orders passed by the 1^st respondent in C.M.A.No.23 of 2011, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

2. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

¶6

3. According to the petitioner, his ancestors have been in possession of the subject-land since 1912 and the petitioner, having inherited the same, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and a ryotwari patta was also granted in his favour by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavaram on 28.04.2001. While so, the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Devipatnam mandal, East Godavari District filed LTRP No.23/2007 before the 2^nd respondent under Section 3 (1) (a) of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70 for restoration of the land to the Government by ejecting the petitioner. Petitioner resisted the eviction on the ground that himself and his predecessor have been in possession since 1912 and a

¶7

ryotwari patta was also granted in his favour and the same is not hit by Regulation 1/59 as amended by Regulation 1/70. 2^nd respondent by an order, dated 18.03.2011, ordered ejectment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent in C.M.A.No.23 of 2011 and he also filed an application for stay of eviction pending disposal of the appeal. Alleging that no orders were passed in the said application, petitioner filed W.P.No.2683 of 2012 and this Court by order, dated 03.02.2012, directed the 1^st respondent to dispose of the stay application at an early date and further directed that the petitioner may not be dispossessed pending disposal of the stay application. It is stated that subsequently 1^st respondent passed orders, dated 24.04.2012, in C.M.A.No.23 of 2011 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Special Deputy Collector. Assailing the same, petitioner filed a revision before the 5^th respondent and also filed an application for stay of operation of the impugned orders on 07.05.2012. It is stated that so far no orders have been passed by the 5^th respondent either in the revision or in the stay application.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending disposal of C.M.A.No.23 of 2011 order of eviction was in force.

¶9

5. In the circumstances, as the matter is pending before the statutory revisional authority, it is considered neither just nor proper to go into the merits of the matter. 5^th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner in the revision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time such orders are passed, status quo obtaining as on today, regarding possession of the land, shall be maintained.

¶10

6. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. Miscellaneous Petition, if any, filed in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶12

11^th June, 2012. Tsy

Badireddy Bulivenkann v. The Additional Agent to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badireddy Bulivenkann v. The Additional Agent to the Government

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

M/s. Vaishnavi Flour Mill Vs The Commissioner of Social Welfare

Battu Kasi Annapurnamma Vs The Additional Agent to the Government, (P.O.I.T.D.a)

Chenchi Reddy, Vs The Agent to Government

Smt. Azra Jabeen Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Pinnamaraju Srinivasa Raju, Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Digumarti Syama Sundaram, Vs Union of india