Allowed

The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector, v. A.K. Velu, S/o Krishnama Naidu

Telangana HC16 Oct 2017WA/1518/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice modified an interim order in a writ appeal concerning restricted lands. The petitioner was restrained from changing land use or creating third-party rights pending the final disposal of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The respondent-writ petitioner shall not change the nature of the land or create third party rights or alienate the same pending disposal of the writ petition.

The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶4

Writ Appeal No.1518 of 2017

¶5

Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.V.M.P. No. 3212 of 2014 in W.P. No. 19265 of 2014 dated 3.3.2015.

¶7

The respondent-writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court questioning the order passed by the Tahsildar under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 9 of 1977”), including on the ground of bias. The learned Single Judge, by order in W.P. No. 4819 of 2013 dated 27.11.2013, observed that, in the peculiar facts of the case before him, it was but appropriate that the District Collector, Chittoor himself hold a de novo enquiry into the entire aspect, and pass an appropriate order under Section 3 read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Act; and the District Collector shall not be guided by any of the findings rendered by his predecessorin-office while passing the order. Thereafter, on the District Collector passing an order on 1.7.2014, the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 19265 of 2014 wherein an interim order was passed. Seeking vacation of the said interim order, the appellants herein filed W.V.M.P. No. 3212 of 2014 which resulted in the order dated 3.3.2015 being passed.

¶8

All that the learned Single Judge has, in effect, held, in the order under appeal, is that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the Collector had decided the issue as a primary authority, and as the respondent-writ petitioner had no other remedy against the order passed by the Collector, the matter necessitated an elaborate hearing. The learned Single Judge has not held that the Collector lacks

¶9

¶10

jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. His observation, in the order under appeal, is only that the matter necessitates a detailed hearing.

¶11

With regards the submission of the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), that the respondent-petitioner is levelling the land and is trying to alienate the subject property, Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that this allegation is wholly unfounded; and the respondent-writ petitioner is carrying on agricultural operations in the subject land.

¶12

In the light of the submission of Sri V.Jagapathi, Learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner in this regard, we consider it appropriate to modify the order under appeal to the limited extent that, pending disposal of the writ petition, the respondent-writ petitioner shall not either change the nature of the land or create third party rights or alienate the same.

¶13

The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶15

___________________ (M. GANGA RAO, J)

¶16

16^th October, 2017 pnb

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶21

Writ Appeal No.1518 of 2017

¶22

Date: 16.10.2017

¶23

pnb

¶24

The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector, v. A.K. Velu, S/o Krishnama Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector, v. A.K. Velu, S/o Krishnama Naidu

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

Gorle Rama Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Kurada Sarada

M/s.Tdi International India (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/s. Jaiprakash-Gayatri Joint Venture Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pillutla Madhu Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

M/s Aaradhya Wines, Vs M/s Sai Towers Flat Owners Welfare Asociatin