Allowed

M/s Theme Ambience Constructions (P) Ltd. v. T.Ramachander Rao

Telangana HC21 Jan 2016WA/44/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ appeal and petition, setting aside the impugned order directing fencing of the subject land pending disposal of the appellants appeal. The Joint Collector was directed to decide the appeal on merits within three months, with the appellant allowed to seek impleadment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing fencing is set aside. The appeal is directed to be decided by the Joint Collector within three months. Status quo is maintained.

M/s Theme Ambience Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

Writ Appeal No.44 of 2016 And Writ Petition No. 1185 of 2016

¶4

Date:21.1.2016

¶5

W.A. No. 44 of 2016

¶6

Between: M/s. Theme Ambience Constructions (P) Ltd., Hyderabad.

¶7

Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

T. Ramachander Rao, Hyderabad and others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶12

Writ Appeal No.44 of 2016 And Writ Petition No. 1185 of 2016

¶13

PC:(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶14

The writ appeal is directed against the following order passed in W.P.M.P. No. 1477 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.1185 of 2016, which reads thus:

¶15

“Pending further orders, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad shall fence the subject land and protect it from encroachment.”

¶16

Respondent No.1 in the appeal, filed the writ petition seeking direction to the Joint Collector to consider and decide his appeal dated 17.10.2014, filed against the orders passed in proceedings No.B/195/2013 and B/1672/2014, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

¶17

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and in the course of hearing, we made certain suggestions, to which, learned counsel for the parties have agreed and they have consented for the following order:

¶18

“1. The Joint Collector shall consider and decide the 1^st respondent’s (writ petitioner) appeal, dated 17.10.2014, filed by him under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, against the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as expeditiously as possible, and, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.1 is directed to

¶19

communicate this order to the appellate authority within a period of ten days from today. It is needless to mention that the appeal shall be considered on merits, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the order passed in the proceedings, impugned in the writ petition.

¶20

2) The order impugned in the present writ appeal is set aside. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo in all respect till the appeal, as aforementioned, is heard and disposed of finally by the Joint Collector. It is open to the appellant to make an application before the appellate authority for his impleadment, and if any such application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall allow the application. It is needless to mention that impleadment of the appellant shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner). All contentions of the parties are kept open. It is open to respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) to bring subsequent events on record before the appellate authority, if he so desires.”

¶21

The writ appeal as well as the writ petition are disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed.

¶22

____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶23

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 21^st January, 2016 Pnb

M/s Theme Ambience Constructions (P) Ltd. v. T.Ramachander Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Theme Ambience Constructions (P) Ltd. v. T.Ramachander Rao

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

D. Tirupathi Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J. Ram Mohan Chowdhary, Vs The Union of India

M/S.Parveen Travels. Vs Licencing Officer R.T.A. Chittoor.

Sangamreddy Sanyasi Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by

Smt. K. Khamarunnisa Begum, Vs The Commissioner

Atmakuri Dharma Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector