Allowed

M.Sarvotham Reddy v. The District Collector

Telangana HC10 Sept 2012WP/9131/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single common order disposing of multiple writ petitions questioning eviction proceedings and orders passed under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 without prior notice or hearing. The High Court set aside all impugned proceedings and directed the authorities to issue fresh notices, allow objections, and conduct a personal hearing before passing reasoned orders while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside. Fresh notice, time for objections, and opportunity of hearing directed. Status quo maintained until reasoned order passed by authorities. Appeals in respondent authorit

M.Sarvotham Reddy Vs The District Collector — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NOs.32247, 32262, 34669 OF 2011; 314, 333, 399, 1086, 7092, 7485, 7489, 7587, 7696, 7700, 7701, 7702, 7706, 7707, 7773, 7776, 7941, 7942, 7945, 8114, 8147, 8177, 8433, 8440, 8481, 8653, 9131 AND 9312 OF 2012

¶5

DATED:10.9.2012

¶6

W.P. No.32247 OF 2011 Between: K. Andalu … Petitioner And The District Collector Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapur, Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

¶9

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶10

These writ petitions are filed questioning the action of the respondents either in trying to evict the petitioners from their respective properties, without considering their representations/objections, or in passing the impugned orders by the respondent authorities under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without giving notice and personal hearing to the petitioners.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to issue a fresh notice in the matter to each one of petitioner and any alleged encroacher, grant them time to file their objections and after receipt of the objections, give them an opportunity of being heard to each of them and then pass a reasoned order in the matter in accordance with law. The order so passed may be communicated to all the writ petitioners/alleged encroachers, within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the said order. If any of the party is aggrieved by the order so passed by the respondent authorities, he shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with the provisions of law before an appropriate forum. We make it clear that until appropriate order, as above, is passed, status quo as on today should be maintained and

¶12

the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the possession of any party who is in possession of the lands in question. We further make it clear that after passing of orders by the respondent authorities, they may take steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law, if required even to disposes the unlawful encroachers/the persons who in unlawful occupation of the lands in question.

¶13

The impugned proceedings in the writ petitions are set aside. Consequently, the appeals filed by such petitioners in the matter before the respondent authorities do not survive.

¶14

With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶15

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶16

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 10.9.2012 bnr

M.Sarvotham Reddy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sarvotham Reddy v. The District Collector

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

Sri Gulzarilal Kedia, Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Naidu Cultural Club Vs The Dy. I.G. of Police

Munchipilli Bangaramma Vs The District Collector

Forum for Good Governance, rep.by its Secretary Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

A.Sarat Kumar, Vs Sri Satyanarayana

Smt.sushma Jaiswal Vs Municipal Administration and Urban Development