Disposed

Aarikutti Nagarajulu Chittoor Dist and 20 Others v. Prl Secy Revenue Dept Hyd and 2 Others

Telangana HC27 Jan 2016WP/2117/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2016, the court addressed a claim that respondents intended to demolish petitioners' houses. Finding Section 6 and 7 notices under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act kept in abeyance pending orders from the 2nd respondent, the court directed that any action by the 3rd respondent must occur only after the 2nd respondent decides the matter. The petition was disposed of with

What did the court decide?

Directing no action by the 3rd respondent until the 2nd respondent decides the matter and intimating such decision to petitioners.

Aarikutti Nagarajulu Chittoor Dist and 20 Others Vs Prl… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2117 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioners claim to be holding house pattas issued wayback in the year 1990 and some of them claim to have constructed houses. As the respondents are trying to demolish the houses of the petitioners without following due process of law, they filed the present writ petition.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader has received instructions and states that the land admeasuring Ac.0-61½ cents in Sy.No.154-1 is classified as Cheruvu Poramboke. Hence, notices under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act were issued to the occupants on 11-05-2015 followed by notices under Section 6 dated 18-05-2015 and as most of the petitioners refused to receive the notices, substitute service was affected. The issue is stated to be pending with the 2^nd respondent, who is stated to have called upon the 3^rd respondent to submit a detailed report and awaiting instructions and orders from the 2^nd respondent. Further action in pursuance of Section 7 and Section 6 notices is kept in abeyance.

¶7

Hence, for the present, the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are trying to demolish their houses appears to be not correct, as Sections 6 and 7 notices are kept in abeyance awaiting further orders from the 2^nd respondent. Hence, it is appropriate to direct that if any action is intended to be taken by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioners, the same shall be done only after the 2^nd respondent takes appropriate decision in the matter. The 2^nd respondent is directed to take appropriate action as per law and the same shall be intimated by the 3^rd

¶8

respondent to the petitioners.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to

¶11

costs.

¶12

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶13

27.01.2016

¶14

Prv

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.2177 of 2016

¶17

27-01-2016

¶18

Prv

Aarikutti Nagarajulu Chittoor Dist and 20 Others v. Prl Secy Revenue Dept Hyd and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarikutti Nagarajulu Chittoor Dist and 20 Others v. Prl Secy Revenue Dept Hyd and 2 Others

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

Vhr Education Society (No.153/2007), Vs Union of India

T. Aswini, Vs The Union of India

Ivrcl Infrastructure and Projects Limited, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Indula Sudha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nelli Chinna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Mekala Jayamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh