Disposed

Sree Veerapratapa Korukonda Diamond Raju v. The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Telangana HC6 Feb 2012WP/2804/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged non-decision on an appeal against a disallowance of a ryotwari patta claim. The Court ordered the Special Commissioner to decide the pending appeal within eight weeks and directed maintenance of the status quo to protect the petitioner's possession.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondent No.1 directed to decide pending appeal within eight weeks; status quo maintained.

Sree Veerapratapa Korukonda Diamond Raju Vs The… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO:2804 of 2012

¶4

DATED:06.02.2012

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SREE VEERAPRATAPA KORUKONDA DIARNOND RAJU

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

THE SPECIAL COMMISASIONER & DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS & OTHERS

¶10

…RESPONDENTS.

¶11

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO:2804 of 2012

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

By order dated 17.11.2007 passed by respondent No:2, the petitioner’s claim for ryotwari patta in respect of Ac.23.75 cents of land situated at Uppedu Veerapuram village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District, under the provisions of A.P. Mahals (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation 1/1969, was disallowed.

¶16

Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No:1 on 4.7.2008. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No:1 in deciding the said appeal, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

It is also pleaded by the petitioner that he is in possession and

¶18

enjoyment of the land in question and that taking advantage of the order passed by respondent No:2, the respondents are attempting to dispossess him forcibly.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶20

The material placed before this Court shows that the petitioner has presented an appeal before respondent No:1 on 4.7.2008. Since the said appeal is stated to be pending on the file of respondent No:1, it would be appropriate to protect the possession of the petitioner till the said appeal is decided.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No:1 to dispose of the appeal pending against the order passed by respondent No:2 in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. No costs.

¶23

_______________ Justice G.Rohini.

¶24

Date:06.02.2012 Gurc.

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO:2804 of 2012

¶27

DATED:06.02.2012

Sree Veerapratapa Korukonda Diamond Raju v. The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Veerapratapa Korukonda Diamond Raju v. The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements

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

Lingampally Pedda Narasimha, Vs The Joint Collector-Ii

Yanamandra Srinivasa Rao, Vs Govt. of A.P.

Kanakamedal Naga Murali Vs The District Collector

Modem Yadagiri, Vs The Joint Collector

Smt.Bathini Sathemma Vs The District Collector,Nalgonda District,Nalgonda

Azmeera Lachu Vs The Tahsildar, Kothagudem,Khammam District