Disposed

Kavali Omkar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Nov 2015WP/38619/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, current lessees via auction, challenged a fresh auction notification delaying their harvest. The court directed the respondent to transfer possession only after petitioners harvest the standing crop and prohibits fresh cropping.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to hand over possession only after petitioners harvest standing crop; petitioners prohibited from raising fresh crops.

Kavali Omkar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38619 of 2015

¶3

27.11.2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kavali Omkar and another

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶9

represented by its Principal Secretary,

¶10

Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.V.Sudhakar Reddy

¶13

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Endowments (AP)

¶14

Counsel for respondent No.4: Mrs.K.Lalitha,

¶15

standing counsel for Endowments (AP)

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The petitioners, who are the lessees in pursuance of an auction held in December, 2012, in respect of the lands of respondent No.4, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the notification, dated 19.11.2015, proposing fresh auction for the said lands for three years from 2015-16 to 2017-18.

¶19

The only ground on which the aforesaid notification is questioned in this writ petition is that without giving the petitioners time to harvest the standing crop, fresh auction is proposed to be held and that the petitioners apprehend their dispossession even before the standing crop is harvested.

¶20

After hearing Mrs.K.Lalitha, learned standing counsel for Endowments (AP) appearing for respondent No.4, I am of the opinion that it would be highly iniquitous if the petitioners are deprived of the standing crop.

¶21

While this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proposed auction, respondent No.4 is, however, directed to handover possession of the lands in

¶22

question to the highest bidder only after the petitioners harvest the standing crops which are stated to be presently in existence. The petitioners shall handover the vacant possession of the lands in question immediately after harvesting the standing crop to respondent No.4 and they shall not raise any fresh crop.

¶23

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.49710 of 2015 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶26

27^th November, 2015

¶27

GHN

Kavali Omkar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavali Omkar, 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

Haribaa, Vs The State of Telangana

S. Suraj Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Azeez Vs The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board

Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J.L. Narasimham, Mumbai and Another Vs M. Raghunandan Rao, Hyd

Sri Sai Welfare Association (Sc) Yerraguntla Town, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh