Dismissed

Chilakalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Rama Sastrulu v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC23 Jul 2012WP/22141/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a notice to vacate premises, the court held that the eviction order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act had become final in 2005. The court found no ground to interfere with the Tahsildar complying with that final order after seven years. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 29.06.2012 requiring petitioners to vacate the site within seven days is not to be interfered with.

Chilakalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Rama Sastrulu Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22141 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Sri Rama Krishna Samithi School, Seethanagaram filed L.G.T.O.No.15 of 1989 before the Special Court, Land Grabbing, Guntur against the petitioners and others alleging that its land in Survey Nos.147/1A1 and 147/138 of Tadepalli Village and Mandal, Guntur District, admeasuring Ac.1.00 was unauthorisedly occupied by them. After hearing the parties, the Special Court passed an order, dated 25.01.2005, directing eviction of the petitioners. Since the Tahsildar happens to be an authority for implementation of such orders, respondent No.1 issued notice, dated 29.06.2012, requiring the petitioners to vacate the site, within seven days. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶5

The petitioners contend that though they suffered an order of eviction, they cannot be required to vacate the premises abruptly. It is also stated that O.S.No.755 of 2005 filed in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for the relief of injunction was dismissed for default, and steps are initiated for restoration of the same.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶7

The petitioners do not dispute that they have suffered an order of eviction in the proceedings initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the

¶8

Act’). The order of eviction has become final and the petitioners were required to vacate the premises in the year 2005. Seven years have elapsed. By taking recourse to one proceedings or the other, the petitioners continued. Respondent No.1 did nothing more than complying with the provisions of the Act and the orders passed by the Special Court. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

L.NARASIMHA

REDDY,J

Dt:23.07.2012

kdl

Chilakalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Rama Sastrulu v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chilakalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Rama Sastrulu v. The Tahsildar

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

Sartaj Pershad, Vs Krishna Babu M.T.

Smt. G. Padma, Vs The Tahasildar

Smt. P. Adilaxmi Vs The District Collector

Doddi Nagendrudu Vs The District Collector

Salla Chandra Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Vangevarapu Charles Vs The District Collector