Disposed

A.K. Narender, S/o. K. Mohan Rao, v. Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre)

Telangana HC3 Oct 2013WP/28574/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found the writ petition premature as no order was passed under Section 6 before the proceeding under Section 7 was initiated. However, it directed authorities to refrain from interference with the petitioner's possession pending the culmination of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to interfere with petitioner's possession till Section 7 proceedings culminate; Writ Petition disposed of; Impugned interim order turned infructuous.

A.K. Narender, S/o. K. Mohan Rao, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28574 of 2013

Date: 03.10.2013

Between:

A.K.Narender

.. Petitioner

and

The Tahsildar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul

¶10

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

A perusal of the record shows that in response to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act in respect of 2000 sq. yards of land in survey No.136 of Gachibowli, the petitioner submitted his objections/reply to respondent No.1 on 13.09.2013.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the immediate reason for the petitioner approaching this Court is that even before any order is passed under Section 6 of the Act, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are trying to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in question.

¶15

In my opinion, the writ petition is premature as the proceedings before respondent No.1 appears to be initiated under Section 7 of the Act and so far no order under Section 6 of the Act has been passed. However, having regard to the allegation that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are trying to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in question, the said respondents are directed not to cause such interference till the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act culminate in passing of appropriate orders.

¶16

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

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35455 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

03^rd October, 2013 GHN

A.K. Narender, S/o. K. Mohan Rao, v. Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K. Narender, S/o. K. Mohan Rao, v. Tahsildar (Deputy Collector Cadre)

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

Dr.Kanagala Venkataratnam Vs B.R.Meena, I.A.S.

V.Rajagopal Reddy Vs The District Collector

M/s.Sai Krupa Enterprises Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R. Leelavathi Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Jai Jawahar Nagar Colony Welfare Committee, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Sri Hasmukh J.Thakkar, Vs The District Collector