Writ petition against dispossession under A.P. Assigned Lands Rules. Court directed authorities to consider petitioner's explanation with notice and stay dispossession pending final orders, then disposed of the petition.
Direction to consider petitioner's explanation with notice; stay on dispossession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32253 of 2016
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that he was issued show cause notice dated 10.03.2016 by the 3rd respondent under Rule-3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 08.09.2016. But, without considering the same and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without passing any final orders on the explanation, the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
Heard both sides.
Since it is stated that the petitioner already filed explanation, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass final orders after issuing notice to the petitioner. Till such time, there shall be stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the subject land
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
23.09.2016 tk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to receive notice and hearing before dispossession.
Whether an interim stay order is appropriate pending consideration of the petitioner's explanation.
Whether the show cause notice and subsequent actions violated the principle of natural justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
3rd Respondent
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
