Disposed

Dabba Suneel, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Dec 2015WP/41756/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of five writ petitions questioning a 2010 resumption/eviction order. The court held that bypassing the appellate forum after five years would not be entertained. Petitioners were directed to approach the appellate authority under the A.P. Assigned Lands Act, with a four-week status quo maintained accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are disposed of directing petitioners to avail appropriate remedy under the Act; status quo maintained for four weeks.

Dabba Suneel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P.No.41750 OF 2015,

¶3

W.P.No.41756 OF 2015,

¶4

W.P.No.41789 OF 2015, W.P.No.41796 OF 2015, AND W.P.No.41874 OF 2015

¶5

COMMON ORDER:

¶6

Heard.

¶7

In all these writ petitions, each petitioner is questioning the resumption order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the 4^th respondent.

¶8

In each case, identical eviction order is issued to the petitioners. They question the said order on the ground that the petitioners were never given any prior notices. Further, when they approached the 4^th respondent for want of online certificates, the information relating to passing of resumption order came to their knowledge. The petitioners state that thereafter they obtained the copy of impugned order under the Right to Information Act and assert that they have been in continuous possession of the property and they were unaware of the said order. Even assuming that the contention of the petitioners is correct, the impugned order of resumption can be questioned by the petitioners in an appeal under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and the petitioners can as well inform the appellate authority that they could not prefer the appeal earlier, because they were not aware of passing of the said orders. Since the primary issue raised is that the petitioners were never served with any notices, though they are residents of the same village, the said issue also needs to be addressed by the respondent No.3, who was the appellate authority.

¶9

Hence, bypassing the appellate Tribunal, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition after five years of passing the impugned order.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy under the Act against the impugned orders in each of the writ petition. The status quo with regard to the land, which is

¶11

subject matter of each of the eviction orders, existing as on today, shall be maintained for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶14

Date: 23-12-2015 kvrm

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶16

W.P.No.41750 OF 2015, W.P.No.41756 OF 2015, W.P.No.41789 OF 2015, W.P.No.41796 OF 2015, AND W.P.No.41874 OF 2015

¶17

Dated: 23-12-2015

¶18

kvrm

Dabba Suneel, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dabba Suneel, 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

Chaparala Nrutya Vs The State of Telangana

Varam Srinivasulu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department

Bokam Suri Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Virupakshi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gujarath Vinod, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Swamy, So Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana