Disposed

0 (M).Naga Padma, v. The Additional Agent to Government, Itda

Telangana HC29 Apr 2013WP/13245/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, without expressing an opinion on merits as the underlying appeal was pending before a lower authority, directed the Additional Agent to Govt., ITDA to dispose of the pending appeal regarding land transfer regulations within two months and disposed of the Writ Petition as figurative.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional Agent toGovernments ITDA to dispose of the pending appeal within two months; disposed of the Writ Petition as disposed of the WPMP as infructuous.

0 (M).Naga Padma, Vs The Additional Agent to Government… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.13245 of 2013

¶3

Dated 29.04.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

O.Naga Padma and 16 others …Petitioners And

¶6

The Additional Agent to Govt., ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and 10 others.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Hari Sreedhar

¶9

Counsel for the respondents: GP for Social Welfare

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

Order:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare Common Order, dated 21-06-2012, of respondent No.1 in IA.Nos.62 and 63 of 2012 in CMA.No.38 of 2012, as illegal. The petitioners sought for a consequential relief of setting aside the said order.

¶13

I have heard Mr.Hari Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of Acs.12-00 of land in Survey No.817 of Paloncha Village, Khammam District. On the complaint of respondent Nos.3 to 11, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short ‘the Regulations’). By Order, dated 27-03-2012, he has closed those proceedings by holding that the Regulations have no application to the place in which the land in dispute is situated. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, respondent Nos.3 to 11 filed an appeal before respondent No.1. In the said appeal, the said respondents have filed IA.Nos.62 and 63 of 2012 for interim reliefs. By Order, dated 21-06-2012, respondent No.1 has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to constructions

¶14

over the disputed land.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as respondent No.2 has rendered a categorical finding of non-application of the Regulations to the land in question, respondent No.1 is not justified in granting the interim orders preventing the petitioners from raising constructions thereon. It is further submitted that even though the petitioners have been awaiting disposal of the two IAs in which the interim order was granted by respondent No.1, so far they have not even been posted for further consideration.

¶16

Having considered the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I refrain from rendering any findings on merits as the appeal is pending before respondent No.1. It would be appropriate that respondent No.1 disposes of the said appeal expeditiously. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 11 against Order, dated 27-03-2012, of respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel, WPMP.No.16264 of 2013, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

_____________________

¶20

C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶21

Date: 29^th April, 2013 lur

0 (M).Naga Padma, v. The Additional Agent to Government, Itda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

0 (M).Naga Padma, v. The Additional Agent to Government, Itda

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

Poondla Venku Reddy, Vs Vakati Ravindra Reddy

Beeda Ravi Chandra Vs Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

Beeda Ravi Chandra Vs Muthyala Bala Rami Reddy

N. Prakash [died] Vs N.Dayanand

Thotakura Swarajyamma Vs Patti Ramanaiah

K.Bhavantha Rao Vs The District Collectror