Allowed

E. Parma v. Chavva Anthaiah

Telangana HC5 Dec 2016WA/1297/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice disposed of this writ appeal under the Letters Patent. The single judge's order allowing a writ petition in land disputes at the stage of admission without notice to appellants was set aside. The appeal was dismissed with directions to give a hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside; writ petition restored for hearing within four weeks; appellants to be put on notice and heard.

E. Parma Vs Chavva Anthaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶4

Writ Appeal No.1297 of 2016

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

Heard Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition), Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel for respondent-writ petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and, at their request, the Writ Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶7

This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37788 of 2016 dated 04.11.2016 whereby the writ petition was allowed at the stage of admission, without the appellants being put on notice, directing the Principal Secretary, Scheduled Caste Development (Tribal Welfare) Department, Government of Telangana to dispose of the revision filed by the respondent-writ petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; and till such time, the official respondents herein were directed not to dispossess the respondent-writ petitioners from the subject lands.

¶8

Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit, not without justification, that the writ petition could not have been allowed at the stage of admission without even putting the appellants herein (respondents 8 to 16 in the writ petition) on notice, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

¶9

When we asked him, Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, would fairly state that the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission itself; and the appellants herein were not given an opportunity being heard.

¶10

While we were initially inclined to set aside the order under appeal on this short ground and to restore the writ petition to file, both Sri

¶11

S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri D.L.Pandu, learned counsel for respondent-writ petitioners, would agree that the order under appeal may be set aside, and the revisional authority may be directed to dispose of the revision within a specified time frame.

¶12

The order under appeal is, therefore, set aside. The revisional authority shall either hear the stay application filed along with the revision petition, or the revision itself, at the earliest and, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before any orders are passed either in the stay application or in the revision, the appellants herein shall be put on notice and be given an opportunity of being heard.

¶13

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) _____________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J) 05^th December, 2016 JSU

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶18

Writ Appeal No.1297 of 2016

¶19

Date: 05.12.2016

¶20

JSU

E. Parma v. Chavva Anthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Parma v. Chavva Anthaiah

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

P.L.v.Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

S.Shenbagavalli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Transport

K.Ravi Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh

The Osmania University, Vs Penumur Menaka

Gkc Projects Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented

Sri. D. Vijender Reddy, Vs S. Prakash Sagar