In this writ petition, the High Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed on 18.06.2019 within four months and maintain the status quo regarding land entries until disposal.
Direction to discharge the pending appeal within four months and maintain status quo on land entries pending disposal.
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.16845 of 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing any orders either in the stay petition or in the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.C/135/2019, dated 27.03.2019, though the petitioner filed the appeal on 18.06.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner.”
2
appeal, status quo with regard to the entries in respect of the subject land shall be maintained by both parties. It is made clear that the un-officials respondents shall not alienate the subject land till disposal of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
18th SEPTEMBER, 2019
YVL
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16845 of 2019
Date:18.09.2019
YVL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner.
Whether to impose a status quo on the subject land pending the disposal of the appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
2nd Respondent
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
