Dismissed

Amudagani Narasamma, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jun 2016WP/17613/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in writ petitions where petitioners petitioned for a declaration that the respondent failed to pass orders on their appeals/stay petitions regarding land possession. The court directed the appellate authority to dispose of pending appeals within eight weeks and restrained the respondent from taking steps for dispossession until then.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellate authority to dispose of pending appeals within eight weeks; restrained respondents from taking steps for dispossession.

Amudagani Narasamma, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 17570, 17591, 17592, 17613, 17614, 17623, 17636, 17467, 17589, 17609, 17593, 17596, 17599 and 17603 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These writ petitions are filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Additional Agent to Government (Project Officer), ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, in not passing appropriate orders on the stay petitions or on the appeals filed against the orders passed by the Agency Divisional Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶5

It is stated that the forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of properties situated in Survey Nos.56, 57 of various extents situated at Relakayalapalli Village, Karepally Mandal, Khammam District, Survey Nos. 214, 373/3, 368/1, 419/1/E, 363/3, 271, 272, 430/1, 430/2, 427/2, 428/1, 452/2, 418/2 of various extents situated at Challasamudram Village, Yellandu Mandal, Khammam District and Survey No. 123/SHA admeasuring 05.08 guntas situated at Regalla Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, for the last 40 to 50 years and after their demise, the petitioners are continuing in possession of the said lands. It is their grievance that though the appeals or stay petitions were filed earlier, against the order of Agency Divisional Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, till date, no orders have been passed either in the stay petitions or in the appeals. It is also urged by the petitioners, to direct the respondents, not to take possession of the properties, pursuant to the orders passed by the Additional Agency authorities, without following due procedure under law.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that if the appeals filed by the petitioners are still pending consideration, the respondents/appellate authority may be directed to disposal of the same, in accordance with law, at the earliest.

¶7

In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of directing

¶8

the appellate authority i.e., the Additional Agent to Government (Project Officer), ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners, against the orders dated 30.04.2016, 26.08.2015, 23.01.2016, 28.08.2015, 29.07.2015, 27.08.2015, 30.04.2016, 25.02.2016, 26.08.2015, 28.04.2016 and 29.07.2015, passed in LTR Case Nos.11/2015, 4/2015/YLD, 23/2015/YLD, 20/2015/YLD, 47/2015/YLD, 19/2015/YLD, 12/2015, 25/2015/KGM, 10/2015/YLD,37/2015/YLD, 54/2015/YLD, 48/2015/YLD, 59/2015/YLD and 46/2015/YLD respectively, if the same are still pending, as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, till such time, respondents shall not take any steps for dispossession of the petitioners from the said properties.

¶9

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶10

_____________________ JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶11

07.06.2016, Issue CC in three days. B/o. vhb

Amudagani Narasamma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amudagani Narasamma, v. The State of Telangana

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

M.K.Padmasri Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kodali Suneela, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J Sambasiva Rao Chennai and Another Vs Secy Home Dept Hyd and 6 Others

B. Ramakondaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Subash Vs The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary

Sri. G. Rajeshwar, Vs The State of Telangana