Judgment · High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of directing
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioners are said to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.3.80 cents, Ac.36.95 cents and Ac.3.85 cents respectively in different survey numbers of Mocharla Village, Gudlur Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 1991. It is stated that they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds subsequent transactions in their favour. Alleging that the lands purchased by the petitioners were assigned and that the transfer in their favour is contrary to the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), notices were issued in the year 2005 by the Tahsildar, Gudlur under Section 3 of the Act, requiring them to explain as to why the transfer in their favour shall not be treated as void. The petitioners submitted explanation but no action has been taken thereon. Thereafter, similar notices were issued in the year 2007 and the petitioners submitted explanation. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are taking steps to resume the possession of the land, without passing any final orders. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment obtained instructions at the stage of admission. It is stated that the final orders were passed on 30.10.2008, holding that the transfer in favour of the petitioners is void and the possession was sought to be taken. It is stated that the nature of the land is preserved in view of the
Operative part
orders passed by this Court in some other matters. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. The petitioners have specifically mentioned about the show cause notices issued to them under Section 3 of the Act. Obviously because they were not aware of the final orders passed in the proceedings, they did not make any mention about it. In fact, they made a grievance out of it. The Act provides for remedy of appeal against the orders passed under Section 3 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader submits that the copies of the final orders are not served upon the petitioners, because their whereabouts are not known. This Court is of the view that the petitioners deserve to be given an opportunity to avail the z remedy of appeal, duly protecting their rights in the meanwhile. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that-
(a) The Tahsildar, Gudlur shall furnish a copy of the final orders passed by him against the petitioners under Section 3 of the Act forthwith, whenever they approach for this purpose;
(b) In case, the petitioners prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of furnishing of the copy of the order, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and the appellate authority shall also consider the application for stay that may be filed by the petitioners; and (c) Status quo obtaining as on today in all respects vis-à-vis the land in question shall be maintained for the period of six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY _________ 29.01.2009 WRIT PETITION Nos : 1057, 1075 and 1078 of 2009 Date: 29.01.2009 JSU
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Jan 2009. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.