Allowed

Vinjam Penchalaiah, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC16 Jul 2014WP/19900/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court found no orders on the petitioners' appeal regarding land encroachment. It directed the Revenue Department to consider the interlocutory application and stay the eviction notice pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

The notice of the Tahsildar dated 10.04.2014 issued under Section 6 of the Act is stayed. The second respondent is directed to consider the interlocutory application and pass orders within four weeks.

Vinjam Penchalaiah, Vs State of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19900 OF 2014

¶3

Date:16.07.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Vinjam Penchaiah and another .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

State of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.19900 OF 2014

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) appearing for the respondents.

¶12

The limited issue, which arises for consideration, is with regard to the inaction of the 2^nd respondent in considering the petitioners’ Appeal No.Rc.B2.1017, which is stated to have been filed on 24.06.2014 along with an interim application for stay. The petitioners’ state that they have occupied the land admeasuring Acs.2.50 cents and Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.631-2, respectively, of Thummala Thalupuru Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in the year 1985 and since then they have been cultivating the same. They further state that as they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land, they are entitled for assignment of the same as a matter of right. However, under the notice of the 3^rd respondent issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘the Act’), dated 10.04.2013, they were treated as encroachers and they are required to vacate the said land. Questioning the said notice, the aforesaid appeal is preferred by the petitioners before the 2^nd respondent.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the

¶14

appeal nor the interim application filed in the appeal is being taken up and in the meanwhile there is threat of eviction by execution of the impugned notice.

¶15

Since the petitioners claim to be in possession over 25 years, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider at least the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till an appropriate order is passed, the notice of the Tahsildar, dated 10.04.2014, issued under Section 6 of the Act shall remain stayed.

¶16

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶18

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

16.07.2014 KH

Vinjam Penchalaiah, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinjam Penchalaiah, v. State of A.P.

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

Sri Nagothi Nagaraju , Naga Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Thimmakka, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Panyam Ashok Kumar, Vs The Station House Officer

S. Suresh Babu, S/o Chandramurthy Vs The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary

Kapde Penthu, S/o. Penthu Vs The Government of Telangana

K Devi Vs The Mandal Revenue officer