Disposed

Mekala Radhika v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC21 Apr 2022WP/20127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition filed regarding the non-consideration of an appeal and stay application concerning land possession under the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land Transfers Regulation 1959. The Court directed the Additional Agent to Government to dispose of the stay application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Agent to Government to dispose of the stay application filed in the appeal against the order dated 04.02.2021 in LTR Case No.93/2020/MKP, within three months.

Mekala Radhika Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

13167 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRII, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESEIIT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:20127 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mekala Radhika, D/o. Mekala venkateshwarlu wo. Durga prasad, occ. Agriculrure fuo. Mulakalapally Village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudembistrict-5071 20

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AllD

¶11

l. The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, at Hyderabad

¶12

The Additional Agent ro Govemment, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District (Appellate Authoriry Under section 3(a) (ii) of A.p.S.A. L.T.R. I of 1959).

¶13

] ]fe lO-egial^{Deputy Collector(T.W),Bhadrachalam,Bhadradri-Kothaguiem District.} 4. The Tahsildar, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem Disrrict- 507120 5. Kistam Kiran Kumar, S/o. Rambabu, Occ.^politician, pJo. H.No. l5-160, Vemusuru Road, Aryavaripeta, Sathupally Village and Mandal Khammam District

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not considering the appeal dated. 09.08.2021 under section 3 (a) (ii) of A.p.S.A.L.T.R. regulations 1959 and stay application dated. 09-08-2021 filed on ol-og-2021 on the file ofthe 2nd respondent, by the petitioner herein and not considering interim orders to suspend the orders dated. 04.02.2021 in LTR case No. 93/2020lMKp of 3rd Respondent enabling the petitioners to continue in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 361 to an extent of Ac. l-00 guntas and Sy.No. 357 to an extent of Ac. l-36 gts situated at Mulakalapally Village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District pending disposal of the appeal on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the official Respondents I to 4 not to evict the petitioners over land bearing Sy.No. 361 to an extent ofAc. l-00 guntas and Sy.No. 357 to an extent of Ac. l-36 gts situated at Mulakalapally Village and Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District, enabling the petitioners continuing in possession of the above land

¶16

pending disposal of the appeal dr. O9-Og-2021 filed under section 3 (a) (ii) of A.P.S.A.L.T.R regulation 1959 on the file of rhe 2nd Respondent;

¶17

IA NO: I OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section l5l CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition, the High court may be preased to direct the official Respondents 1 to 4 not to evict the petitioners from land bearing Sy.No. 36r to an extent ofAc: r-00 guntas and Sy.No. 357 to an extent of Ac. l-36 gts situated at Mulakalapally Village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District enabling the petitioners to continue in possession in the above land;

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners:

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. I & 2:

¶21

SRI. S MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶22

GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4: The Court made the following ORDER:

¶24

GP FOR RE'ENUE

¶25

\ I

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEKREDDY} WRIT PETITION^{No.20127of 2022}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Aggrieved by the^{action of} .the^{respondentNo'2 -} Additional Agent^{to Government,Bhadrachalam,Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District,^{in not considering the appealalong with} the stay application^{filed by the petitioner underSection} 3(aXii) of the^{Telangana ScheduledAreas Land Transfer} Regulation¹ of^{1959, the petitionerhas filedthe presentWrit} Petition.

¶29

Having regard to^{the fact that the petitionerhas already} filed appeal along^{with the stay application,against the order} dated 04.02.2021^{passed by the respondentNo'3} -^Special Deputy Collector^{(T.W), Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District,^{in LTR Case No'93/2020/MKP, without} going into the merits^{or demerits of the case, this Writ Petition} is disposed of^{directing the respondent No'2 to dispose of the}

¶30

¶31

AAR, J W-P.No.2Ot2? ot 2022

¶32

¶33

stay application in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.02.202t in LTR Case No.93l2020lMKp,

¶34

strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//rRrr,copy// Qo

To,

SECTIONOFFICER

I ffil;il::3:i,i,iliiir";, # werrare and rribar werrare Department, srate or

¶41

j. ii: 3,1"1ljifilfftj|$:l:nt-Bhadracharam. Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, +rr,.iti,ir^j,i,-il;ffi ffijiJ,ft H):j;i;*fl :,t,ix;fj:*J.l};:#;?Tiff 5. one CC to Sri S Madan Mohan Rao oa_"","j.opiiii", 6. Two CC to Cp for Sociat We.tfare, njgi i"ri iir.,i"-ltate of Tetangana. toUTl 3. Iff 33 i:r!P ror Revenue, Higr,'cou? i#;##i"rangana (our)

HIGH COTIRT

AARJ

DATED:21/04/2022

ORDER

i.) [ 3 JUri 2022

.
.S P'.';

¶47

WP.No.20l27 of 2022

¶48

WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS

Mekala Radhika v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Radhika v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

Animireddy Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Godishala Ravinder

Manda Buchamma Vs The State of Telangana

V Radha Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Kodapa Vaman Rao Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Ayadapu Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Valbaju Srikanth Vs K.Naresh Reddy