Dismissed

G.Gunasekhar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Jun 2015WP/15604/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a resumption of assigned land. It held that since an appellate remedy is available and recently utilized before, the petitioner must approach the appellate authority instead of seeking writ relief. The petition was dismissed with a two-week stay. Ratio: Regularity in jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner instructed to approach the appellate authority; status quo maintained for two weeks.

G.Gunasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.15604 of 2015

BETWEEN

G.Gunasekhar

... PETITIONER

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

Heard.

¶18

2. Petitioner has questioned the order of the Tahsildar, dated 02.05.2015 whereunder the assigned land in favour of the petitioner has been resumed on finding that the petitioner sold the said land to one Dandapani and thereby, violated the conditions of assignment. Said order also refers to the said purchaser filing W.P.No.9623 of 2008 before this court and later said writ petition was withdrawn giving consent to pay ex gratia. The Tahsildar while passing the impugned order has given his reasons, which are now contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any case, the order impugned is clearly appealable and, in fact, against the earlier identical order passed by the Tahsildar, petitioner had himself preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Division, which was subsequently allowed on 22.02.2011. Therefore, there are no reasons to by-pass the said appellate remedy available to the petitioner.

¶19

3. Since the order of the Tahsildar is passed only recently, it is open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal and seek appropriate orders from the appellate authority. Status quo, as existing as on today, shall be maintained for a period of two weeks, within which time it is open for the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy.

¶20

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel,

¶21

the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶23

June 4, 2015

¶24

Lmv

G.Gunasekhar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gunasekhar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mr. Yakkala Veerambotlu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Dr. N. Rajesh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. N. Rajesh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Baditha Ravanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

Joginpally Krishna Rao S/o. Venkat Rama Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its

Vadde Venkata Lakshmamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh