The court held that resorting to proceedings to dispossess the petitioner while a statutory revision with interim stay was pending was impermissible.
Respondent No.1 to dispose of the pending revision petition; Respondent No.5 restrained from acting on the impugned notice.
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 J SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.4794 OF 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the lands to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in Survey No.216/A, situated at Gudem Village, Dandepally Mndal, Adilabad District, presently Mancherial District under the guise of issuance of notice vide No.B/28/2018, dated 22.01.2018 even though there is stay with regard to the same subject land in the statutory revision filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 as illegal.
2
village, Dandepally Mandal, Adilabad District, presently Mancherial District and the same was purchased by him in the year 1965 from one Bathula Rajam by paying sale consideration and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights. He further submits that respondent No.4 initiated LTR proceedings vide No.TW A1/330/87 dated 29.05.2003 basing on the information issued by the respondent No.5. The petitioner submitted his explanation and also produced the documents specifically stating that the transaction has taken place between two non-tribals in the year 1965 much prior to the TS/AP Scheduled Area Land Transfer regulation Act 1969 amendment regulation and 1970 (brevity ‘regulations’) and requested to drop the proceedings. He further submits that respondent No.4 without considering the contentions of the petitioner, passed the ejectment order in Case No.TW/A1/330/87 dated 29.05.2003. Hence, aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal No.A4/LTR/25/2007 before respondent No.3 with a delay. Respondent No.3 without
3
considering the averments made in support of the condonation of the delay petition, rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal is time barred by its order dated 26.10.2007.
4
have any authority or jurisdiction to issue impugned notice dated 22.01.2018 when there is a stay granted by respondent No.1 in statutory revision.
5
respondent No.5 shall not take any steps pursuant to the impugned notice No.B/28/2018 dated 22.01.2018.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
9th February, 2023 PSW
6
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4794 of 2018
9th February, 2023
PSW
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the executive authority can issue dispossession proceedings while a statutory revision stay is pending.
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
Respondent No.5
J SREENIVAS RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
