Disposed
Noonela Appalaswamy v. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its
Telangana HCWP/7032/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
ANDHRA PRADESH – HYDERABAD. For the State of…
What the court decided
AI extract
ANDHRA PRADESH – HYDERABAD. For the State of…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH – HYDERABAD. For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.NO. 7032 of 2014
PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl. No. |
Date | ORDER | OFFICE NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 19.09.2014 | PNR,J W.P.M.P.No.29509 of 2014 At the admission stage, by order dated 20.03.2014 while issuing notice before admission returnable in four weeks, this Court passed the order. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “Having regard to the submissions made and the history of litigation, there shall be interim direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to entertain any registrations with reference to the land to an extent of Ac.7.22 cents in Sy.No.164/5c part situated at Vapagunta Village, Visakhapatnam District, until further orders.” O n 02.07.2014 after considering the elaborate submissions made by both counsels, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions. “The writ petition is disposed of, with a liberty to the petitioners as well as 4th respondent to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam (Appellate Authority), before whom the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 09.11.2009 of Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams) under Section 7(1) of A.P.Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 is pending and inform that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and communicate the decision to the parties within a period o f one week thereafter. On such a |
Transferred to i/o. folder before corrections if any. B/o. kkm |
request made by either of the parties, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam shall consider such request, fix a date of hearing, afford opportunity of hearing to the appellants and respondents or to their representatives and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law. The date of hearing shall be fixed and hearing be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of request by either of the parties and shall pass orders thereon within one week after conclusion of hearing by duly assigning reasons in support of the said decision and communicate the same to the parties. The parties shall not seek adjournment and shall present before the Revenue Divisional Officer on the date fixed by him for hearing. Till the orders are passed and decision communicated to the parties, the interim order granted by this Court on 20.03.2014 shall stand.” This W.P.M.P. is filed as ‘for being mentioned’ seeking modification of the orders passed on 02.07.2014. The modifications sought was on the ground that proceedings are not disposed of as directed and on account of continuation of the earlier interim orders, the proceedings are not allowed to be concluded. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Satya Prasad, submits that final orders are now passed, but the interim orders earlier granted is misunderstood and, therefore, requires clarification. The extracted portion of the order passed by this Court on 02.07.2014 is very clear regarding operation of interim order. Therefore, no clarification is required. Accordingly, the W.P.M.P. is disposed of. _____________ 19.09.2014 kkm
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court