Disposed

B.Mallikarjuna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Feb 2016WP/4089/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition questioning a show cause notice regarding allegations and delayed orders was disposed of with liberty to file additional representation, subject to status quo maintenance by the lower authority.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file additional representation; 4th respondent directed to consider same and pass appropriate orders; status quo maintained.

B.Mallikarjuna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4089 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner questions the notice in R.C.B.66/2014 dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District, the 4^th respondent, requiring him to submit his explanation as regards the allegations made against him. The petitioner states that the said notice was received by him on 27.01.2016 and on 30.01.2016 itself a representation on behalf of all the villagers was given to the 4^th respondent. While no orders are passed by the 4^th respondent so far, the petitioner contends that the notice itself is illegal as it is issued after 14 years of grant of Lavoni Pattas.

¶6

It is evident from the show cause notice and the explanation stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner, as above, that he has already submitted an explanation and the orders of the 4^th respondent are awaited. Merely because the pattas were issued long time back is no ground to entertain the Writ Petition against the show cause notice, particularly as the petitioner is entitled to raise all his contentions before the 4^th respondent. If the petitioner so desires, he is at liberty to file additional reply/supplementary representation in continuation with his representation dated 31.01.2016. The petitioner is granted a week’s time to file additional reply/supplementary representation and the

¶7

4^th respondent shall thereafter consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till passing of the

¶8

appropriate orders by the 4^th respondent, status quo existing as on today shall be maintained by the parties.

¶9

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶12

Date:10.02.2016 KH

B.Mallikarjuna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Mallikarjuna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Annamreddy Srinivasulu Reddy , Siva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maarupuri Padhakondamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary-

K. Dasaradha Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Batta Appalaswamy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary -

Ippagunta Venkata Naga Manojnath Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nidamolu Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh