Dismissed

Smt.L.Anuradha v. The Land Reforms Tribunal-cum

Telangana HC26 Dec 2013WP/37978/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged interference with land possession despite an existing court order of status quo. Court found expert opinion unnecessary as matter is pending before the Primary Tribunal. Petitioner was directed to seek further orders from respondent No.1. Writ petition and interim petition were disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Respondent No.1 (Land Reforms Tribunal) for further directions regarding the status quo order in pending appeal.

Smt.L.Anuradha Vs The Land Reforms Tribunal-cum — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37978 of 2013

¶3

Date: 26.12.2013

¶4

Between: Smt. L. Anuradha

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

AND The Land Reforms Tribunal-cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District and others

¶7

.....RESPONDENTS

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.V. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: AGP FOR HOME

¶9

The Court made the following :

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that despite an order of status quo granted by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet on 16.10.2012 in I.A.No.685 of 2012 in L.R.A.No.5 of 2012, respondents 2 to 5 have been causing interference with the petitioner’s possession of the lands in various Survey Numbers of Pedavoora Village and Mandal, Ibrahimpet Village, Anumula Mandal and Sangaram Village, Pedavoora Mandal of Nalgonda District.

¶12

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area), on instructions, submitted that in pursuance of the order of the Primary Tribunal, the revenue authorities have taken possession of the excess ceiling surplus land on 05.06.2012 under a panchanama.

¶13

Mr.M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner however seriously disputed this submission by stating that physical possession is still with the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner has already secured an order of status quo from respondent No.1. If respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been circumventing the said order, the petitioner is entitled to approach respondent No.1 for further directions. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the respective pleas of the parties, this Court feels it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pending proceedings before respondent No.1.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application before respondent No.1 in the pending appeal.

¶16

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.47243 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

Date: 26.12.2013 va

Smt.L.Anuradha v. The Land Reforms Tribunal-cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.L.Anuradha v. The Land Reforms Tribunal-cum

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

Juluru Veera Raghava Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nalkala Narsing Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Gorre Seetha Ramaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vadlamudi Narayanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jaami Narsinga Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kancharla Punnaiah, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh