Disposed

Tupakula Aravala Raju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep by its Principal

Telangana HC4 Jul 2014WP/18491/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

this is a writ petition alleging inaction by the High Court in hearing a revision petition challenging an eviction order. The court disposed of the petition by directing the first respondent to fix an early date for the revision hearing within four weeks and stayed the eviction order temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to take up the revision petition and interlocutory application at the earliest, pass appropriate orders within four weeks, and stayed the eviction order for that period.

Tupakula Aravala Raju, Vs The Government of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18491 of 2014

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

¶4

2. An order of eviction was passed against the petitioner by the Agency Divisional Officer, respondent No.3 herein. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal being C.M.A.No.24 of 2011 before the second respondent. The said appeal was, however, dismissed on merits by the order of the second respondent

¶5

dated 31.10.2013. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner states that he has preferred a revision before the first respondent on 10.01.2014 along with an interim application for stay. Petitioner states that if the order passed by the third respondent is given effect to, it will result in serious prejudice as he will be dispossessed and thereby, the revision petition filed by him before the first respondent would become infructuous. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed alleging inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking up the revision petition and the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner.

¶6

3. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, who has taken instructions, submits that the first respondent would consider the revision petition of the petitioner along with the interlocutory application at the earliest and pass appropriate

¶7

orders thereon.

¶8

4. In the circumstances, therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take up the petitioner’s revision petition referred to above by fixing an early date and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law at least on the interlocutory application, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the first respondent requesting for an early date of hearing in the said revision. Pending consideration of the said revision and the interlocutory application by the first respondent, the order of the third respondent dated 08.03.2011 in LTRP No.47 of 2008, as confirmed by the second respondent in C.M.A.No.24 of 2011 dated 31.10.2013, shall remain stayed for a period of four weeks.

¶9

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶11

4^th July, 2014 Note: Issue CC in one week. (Bo) sj

Tupakula Aravala Raju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tupakula Aravala Raju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep by its Principal

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

C.Md. Yakub, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M. Anjana Devi, Vs The District Collector

Yelampally Padma Vs The District Revenue Officer

Jai Kisan Seeds and Seed Processors, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal

T.Sanjeevu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Srirama Traders Vs Govt. of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary