Dismissed

Smt. Vanitha Bai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2022WA/94/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenges the single judge's disposal of a petition seeking stay on eviction under the AP Land Act. The High Court held the appellant could seek remedy by appeal, dismissed the writ appeal, but granted two weeks for appeal and stayed eviction temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Stay of eviction granted for two weeks; liberty granted to file appeal within two weeks.

Smt. Vanitha Bai Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT AP PEAL NO: 94 OF 2019

¶6

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order dated 28-01-20'19 in W.P.No.715 of 2019 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶7

1 Smt. Vanitha Bai, W/o. Sri Nandram Singh Hazari, Aged about 39 years, Occ: House wife, Ryo.PR.No.13-1-514/1/A, canqabowli, Dhobloet, Hvderatjad

¶8

2 Yashveer Singtl Hazari, S/o. Nandaram Singh Hazari,Aged ab<jut 15 years, Occ: Student, R/o.PR.No.13-1-514/1/A, Gangabowli, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, being minor rep. by his Mother and Natural Garden Smt. Vanitha Bai Wo. Sri Nandram Singh Hazari.

¶9

.,.Appellants/Petitioners

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Stale of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,Hyderabad, Rep. by its Revenue Department, Principal Secretary. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Govemment of Telanqana, Hyderabad. The Tahsildar, Aasifnagar Mandal, Govemment of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

lA NO: 2 oF 2019

¶14

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not lo evict the Petitioners from the schedule property sttualed in PR.No.13-1-514/1/A, Gangabowli, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad by suspending the impugned order in Lr. No.B2l6006/2018 passed by the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. B. RAJESHWAR REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Courl delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE H }N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH C TIANDRII STIARMA AND

¶19

¶20

TII ' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE .{BHINAND KUMAR SI{AV]:LI

¶21

WRIT APPEAL No.94 of 2O19

¶22

JUDGME IT: Pet the Hon'bte the Chief Justice Sotish Chandra Sh,.rma)

¶23

Th,^. present writ appeal is arising out of arl order dated 28.O7.2C 19 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.? 15 of 2019.

¶24

Thr undisputed facts ol the case reveal that the competer Lt authorit5r under the provisions of tl-re .{ndhra Pradesh -and Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, "the Act"), has pass:d an order on 08.01.2019 directing eviction of the encroach 3rs, against which the writ petitton was preferred without availing the remedy of appeal. In those circumst mces, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petit on with a liberty to file an appeal in the matter. Sec ion 10 of the Act is reproduced as under:-

¶25

"lO. Appeal:- (1) An appeal shall lie {a) to t}re CoU ctor from aly decision or order passed by a Tahsildar or t eputy Tahsildar under t.Ilis Act and (b) to the District Coll, ctor from any decision or order of a Couector passed othe^'wise t] arr on appeal, and (c) to the Boa-rd of Revenue frorr arry decisioa or order of a District Collector passed otl1e wise than on appeal. There shall be no appeal against a de:ision or order passed by the Collector or the Drstrict ColI ctor on appeal, but the District Collector may revise arly decision or order passed by a Deputv- Tahsildar or colle:tor under this Act, and the Board of Revenue mav revir: any decision or order passed by any officer under this \ct.

¶26

¶27

(21 Pendiag tlee disposal of any appeal or pctition for revision under this Act, the District CoUector or the Board of Revenue as the case may be, may suspended tl.e executio! of the order appealed against or sought to be revised."

¶28

<br>

¶29

The aforesaid statutory provision of law provides for a remedy of appeal and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in disposing of the writ petition with a liberty to file an appeal. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the leamed Single Judge.

¶30

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, t.w,o weeks time is granted to the appellants to file an appeal and for a period of two weeks from today there will be no eviction in the matter.

¶31

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶32

stand closed, There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

SD/.M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUW REGISTRAR \./ //TRUE COPY//

¶34

SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

'l . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Depa(ment, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat Hyderabad, 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Government ofTelangana, Hyderabad. 3. The T^ahsildar, Aas_ifnagar l,4andal, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri B. Rajeahwar Reddv, Advocate fOpUCl^-

¶37

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Coun for th; State'of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy CHR kstu

HIGH COUR I-

DATED:09/0212022

JUDGMENT

--r,.<a _"::-=<br>1 $E sI4 14'
('
22 riB 2r?2

¶42

W.A.No.94 oF2019

¶43

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT CI)STS.

¶44

Y ''q <sup>a? @

Smt. Vanitha Bai v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vanitha Bai 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

Emmadi Ramakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

M. Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

T. Ramadasappa Naidu Vs The State of Telangana

P Satish Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Prl Secy, Cons.Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Hyd and Anr.

A.Durga Bhavani Vs The Union of India

K Shankar Reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others