Dismissed

Ganjala Nakshatram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC29 Jan 2016WP/2506/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two Writ Petitions, the High Court directed the respondent-notice issuing authority to consider the petitioners'explanations regarding claimed violations before taking action. The Court restrained the respondent from dispossessing the petitioners or interfering with the land until a decision in accordance with law is passed, given the petitioners' long-standing possession and lack of explicit t

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioners'explanations and pass appropriate orders; restrained the respondent from dispossessing the petitioners or interfering with their land pending such d

Ganjala Nakshatram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.2476 and 2506 OF 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioners are given identical notices dated 18.12.2015 under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. Each of the petitioners through his counsel has filed detailed explanations denying the claim of the Tahsildar, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District, the 4^th respondent. The explanations dated 02.01.2016 of the petitioners are sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and the same appear to have been acknowledged by the 4^th respondent on 05.01.2016. While the said proceedings are pending adjudication before the

¶6

4^th respondent, alleging that on 18.01.2016 the officials of the

¶7

4^th respondent came to the petitioners and threatened to dispossess them, these Writ Petitions are filed.

¶8

I am not able to see any reason for the 4^th respondent to forcibly dispossess the petitioners when he has already given them the notices inviting explanations and since the petitioners have already filed their explanations, it is for the 4^th respondent to consider the same and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶9

Though it appears that these Writ Petitions are filed only on an apprehension without there being any threat of dispossession of the petitioners, keeping in view the claim of the petitioners that they are in possession from 1994 onwards, it is appropriate to direct the 4^th respondent to consider the explanations of the

¶10

petitioners and then take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the 4^th respondent shall not dispossess or otherwise interfere with the lands of the petitioners covered under the impugned notices.

¶11

The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to

¶12

costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶14

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶15

29.01.2016

¶16

Prv

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶18

WRIT PETITION Nos.2476 and 2506 OF 2016

¶19

29-01-2016

Ganjala Nakshatram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganjala Nakshatram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

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

Chanda Chandrasekhara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Maryala Yellamma Vs The State of Telangana, Rep., Its Secretary

Sri Tadipathri Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

K.C.Sathyanarayana Moorthy Vs The State of A.P.

Chakali Mallaiah, , Korakandla Mallaiah, S/o Yellaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by

Dayyala Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana