Remanded

Smt. M. Anjamma, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Feb 2016WP/2825/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ petition challenging the impugned notice could not be entertained at that stage as the authority was duty-bound to consider the petitioners' representation regarding occupancy rights before passing a decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fifth respondent to examine the petitioners' representation on occupancy rights and pass a reasoned order; enforcement of any adverse order stayed for two weeks.

Smt. M. Anjamma, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.2825 of 2016

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Smt. M. Anjamma and another.

¶6

... PETITIONERS

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Telangana Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.02.2016

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶12

1.	Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?	No
2.	Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?	No
3.	Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?	No

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioners question the notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act dated 07.12.2015. Petitioners submit that the aforesaid notice was issued at the instance of the sixth respondent and further submit that there is no reason to declare the land, in question,

¶15

as encroached land or wakf land and places strong reliance upon the occupancy rights certificate issued by the competent authority under the A.P. Telangana Area (Abolition of Inams) Act. Petitioners have already filed a detailed explanation dated 09.12.2015 to the impugned notice before the fifth respondent making all the averments with regard to occupancy rights certificate etc. The said representation is under consideration by the fifth respondent.

¶16

2. Hence, at this stage, I do no see any reason to entertain the writ petition, as the fifth respondent is duty bound to consider the said representation of the petitioners on merits and while taking appropriate decision, shall pass a reasoned order.

¶17

3. In view of the above, the fifth respondent is directed to examine the representation of the petitioners, as above and deal with the same by passing a reasoned order and communicate the decision to the petitioners. In view of the averments of the petitioners that they are in long standing possession of the land, in question, if any adverse is passed against the petitioners, the same shall not be enforced for a period of two (2) weeks thereafter to enable petitioners to avail appropriate further remedies.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶20

February 1, 2016 DSK

Smt. M. Anjamma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Anjamma, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ooka Surya Chandra Rao Vs State of Ap

Nelli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nookaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sadanala Vikramaditya Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary