All are v. 4 The Tahsildar, Koratla Madnal, Koratla, Karimnagar District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaringthe action of the respondent No.3 in not passing any orders in the stay petition filed by the petitioner in appeal Nos. 573 of 2008, 576 of 2008, 574 of 2008, 575 of 2008 578 of 2008, 878 of 2008 879 of 2008 880 of 2008 881 of 2008 which are preferred aggrived by the orders passed by the respondent No. 4 in B/208/2006 dated 19-3-2008, even though the sid appeals were filed on. 4 in B/208/2006 dated 19-3-2008, even though the said appeals were filed on 3-4-2008, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of the Articles 14, 19 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently directthe petitioners from the land assigned to them and succeeded by them in which they are in possession in the extents ofland admeasuring 2 Acres. respondents notto dispossess 03 Guntas, land admeasuring 1 Acres. 03 guntas, land admeasuring 1 Acre. 03 guntas, land admeasuring 1 Acre. 04 guntas, land admeasuring 0.29 guntas, land admeasuring 1 Acre. 03 guntas, land admeasuring 0.30 guntas, land admeasuring 0.30 guntas, land admeasuring 0.31 guntas, land admeasuring 1 Acre, of the petitioners NO.1 to 9 respectively in survey No. 1245 situated at Koratla proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District until the Disposal of the Appeals bythe respondent No.03 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 13785 of 2008 Order: It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of petitioner No.1 was assigned Ac.2.03 guntas of land, petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 were assigned Ac.1.03 guntas, Ac.1.04 guntas, 0.29 guntas, Ac.1.03 guntas and Ac.1.00 of land respectively, and the ancestors of petitioner Nos.6, 7 and 8 were assigned 0.30 guntas, 0.30 guntas and 0.31 guntas of land respectively, situated in Survey No.1245 of Koratla proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District, under Laoni Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1405/58, dated
25.7.2008 and File No. A/3/3057/1961, dated 03.11.1961 and since then the lands are being cultivated and that is their only source of livelihood. While so, the 4th respondent – Tahsildar, Koratla Mandal without looking into the facts of the case and without giving any opportunity of hearing passed orders on
19.03.2008 directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the assigned lands. Aggrieved by the said order, it is stated that the petitioners preferred statutory appeals being Appeal Nos.573, 576, 574, 575, 578, 878, 879, 880 and 881 of 2008 before the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, on 03.04.2008 along with applications to suspend the operation of the order and to direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess them until the disposal of the appeals. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the appeals are filed on 03.04.2008, the 3rd respondent has not given any date for hearing the appeals nor passed any orders on the stay petitions. Hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Admittedly, the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the orders passed by the 4th respondent are still pending consideration before the 3rd respondent and no orders are passed either in the appeals or on the stay petitions. If the order of the 4th respondent is not stayed during the pendency of the appeals, the whole cause will become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, to consider and dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioners against the orders of the 4th respondent, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Till then, the order dated
19.03.2008 passed by the 4th respondent shall remain stayed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 03.07.2008 Nsr
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.