Dismissed

Mallipeddi Annapurna Devi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Dec 2015WP/41359/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four writ petitions challenging an attempt to dispossess petitioners from lands covered by pending revisions. The court directed the District Collector to fix a hearing date within a week, notify parties, and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

District Collector to fix early hearing date within a week, notify petitioners, and maintain status quo pending compliance.

Mallipeddi Annapurna Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P.No.41352 of 2015, W.P.No.41353 of 2015, W.P.No.41356 of 2015, AND W.P.No.41359 of 2015

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶5

All these writ petitions are similar where the petitioners complain of attempt to dispossess from the lands covered by the writ petitions during the pendency of the revisions before the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

The petitioners state that against the orders of the 3^rd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer dated 10.11.2015, they filed separate revisions along with stay petition on 05.12.2015 before the 2^nd respondent. Even today, the revisions and stay petitions are stated to be pending and no orders are passed. It is also sought pending consideration of the said revisions and the stay petitions, the petitioners apprehend that they may dispossess by the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer by executing the impugned orders in the revisions.

¶7

The revisions are stated to be pending since 05.12.2015 before the 2^nd respondent along with the petitions for stay. Since the remedy of revision is invoked is a statutory remedy available under Section 4B of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, it is appropriate for the 2^nd respondent - District Collector to notify the petitioners by issuing notice to them and pass appropriate orders in the revisions or at least in the interim stay petitions filed by the petitioners.

¶8

In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to fix an early date for hearing the revisions preferably within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and notify the petitioners and hear them and pass appropriate orders on the interim stay

¶9

petitions moved by the petitioners in the revisions. Pending compliance with the directions as above, the status quo obtained as on today with regard to the lands claimed by the petitioners in each of the writ petition shall be maintained and the same shall be subject to appropriate further orders that will be passed by the District Collector in pursuance of the directions herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶12

Date: 21-12-2015 kvrm

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶14

W.P.No.41352 of 2015, W.P.No.41353 of 2015, W.P.No.41356 of 2015, AND W.P.No.41359 of 2015

¶15

Dated: 21-12-2015

¶16

kvrm

Mallipeddi Annapurna Devi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallipeddi Annapurna Devi, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kollur Sarana Bassappa Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mohammed Adil Bin Arif, Vs The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretar

V.Ramalingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

M.Pramila Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Punganuru Venkata Ramana, Vs The Principal Secretary (Revenue)

Talatam Satyakumari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh