Disposed

Rakapally Srinivasa Siva Ramasubba Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC10 Jul 2014WP/2592/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Form No. II notice alleging the petitioner purchased assigned land is disposed of. The Court directs the second respondent to issue notices to both parties, hear them, and pass final orders within three months, while continuing an existing interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to give notice to petitioner and third respondent, hear both parties, and pass final orders within three months. Stay of dispossession continued.

Rakapally Srinivasa Siva Ramasubba Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P. NO. 2592 OF 2012

¶3

Date of Judgment: 10.7.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Rakapally Srinivasa Siva Ramasubba Rao

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada Division, Krishna district and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

W.P. NO. 2592 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

W.P.M.P.No. 10803 of 2013 is ordered.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent No.3.

¶15

This writ petition is directed against the Form No. II notice issued under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Land

¶16

(Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short “the Rules”), dated 28.2.2011 to the petitioner alleging that he is the purchaser of the assigned land and directing him to show-cause why he should not be evicted from the assigned land in question. The said notice was replied to by the petitioner on 21.1.2012 by showing the cause against the said proposed action of eviction. However, no final order is passed as on this day.

¶17

At the stage of admission, on 2.2.2012, this Court granted interim stay of dispossession and the said order is still in force even as on today.

¶18

The newly impleaded respondent No.3 claims that she is the original assignee of the land in question and she was issued a Form - I notice dated 28.12.2011 under Rule 3 of the Rules by the second respondent asking her to explain why the assigned land should not be resumed to the Government by canceling the assignment. It is stated by the third respondent that she gave a reply to the said notice and that she is entitled to restoration of the assigned land by evicting the writ petitioner.

¶19

It is submitted that on account of pendency of this writ petition, the second respondent has not passed any order under Rule 3 of the Rules, though replies have been filed by the petitioner and the third respondent, however, the status of the respondent No. 3 as the original

¶20

assignee is disputed by the writ petitioner and since the matter is pending before the second respondent for adjudication, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the second respondent to give notice to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent, hear both the parties and then pass final orders in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

It is made clear that the stay of dispossession granted by this court on 2.2.2012 during the pendency of this writ petition shall continue to operate till the second respondent passes appropriate orders, as directed above.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶23

_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶24

Dt. 10.7.2014 KR

Rakapally Srinivasa Siva Ramasubba Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakapally Srinivasa Siva Ramasubba Rao v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

N.Narayanamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kunduri Gopamma Vs The Government of Telangana

Batchali Varalakshmi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

T.Narayanamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Anjili Tete, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Geetha Bai Soni Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad