Disposed

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational v. The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Telangana HC4 Oct 2013WP/28723/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court declined to entertain Writ Petition for merits as revision remedy under Regulation 5 of AP (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation 1970 is available, but granted one-month interim stay on dispossession of educational lands pending revision petition due to urgency and threat of dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition declined; petitioner directed to file Revision Petition; Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioner for one month.

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28723 of 2013

¶3

Date:04.10.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational Society, Bhadrachalam Town, Reptd by its Secretary-K.Krishna Prasad

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And:

¶8

The Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Hyderabad and four others.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, vide AP.No.13/2008/G1, dated 19.09.2013, of respondent No.1, whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed against orders, dated 22.12.2007 and 18.02.2008 in Case No.7305 of 1988.

¶13

At the hearing, Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that under Regulation 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation 1970, his client has a right of revision to the Board of Revenue (presently, the Commissioner (Appeals)). He has, however, stated that in view of the imminent urgency involved, as his client is

¶14

under serious threat of dispossession, he has filed this Writ Petition.

¶15

In my opinion, when the remedy of a Revision Petition before the Commissioner (Appeals) is available, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain the Writ Petition for adjudication on merits. However, in view of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, which is running educational institutions, its possession needs to be protected in the interregnum till it files a Revision Petition before the Commissioner (Appeals) and seeks an interim order.

¶16

Accordingly, while declining to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of Revision. To facilitate the petitioner to seek an appropriate interim order, the respondents, in particular respondent No.3 and his sub-ordinates are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question for a period of one month from today.

¶17

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

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.35663 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 04^th October 2013 DR

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational v. The Commissioner and Director of Settlements

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapa Ramalaxmamma Memorial Spiritual Educational v. The 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

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

Sri Hasmukh J.Thakkar, Vs The District Collector

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

Palagani Yallamanda Reddy Vs Danda Venkateswara Reddy

KothaPalli Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Madala Venkata Mallika, Vs Madala Kotaiah