IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22583 of 2014 BETWEEN B. Satyanarayana and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. B. DEVADAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the second respondent is allotting the land admeasuring Ac.4.92 cents in Sy.No.606/2 of Adavitakkellapadu, H/o. Pedapalakaluru village of Guntur Mandal, Guntur District to respondent No.5. Petitioners allege that they are in possession of the property and against the orders of resumption dated 05.05.2005, they have filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, which is pending. The order of resumption is now stated to be subject matter of the appeal before the Joint Collector in which learned counsel for the petitioners states that he himself is appearing before the Joint Collector and submits that pending consideration of the appeal, if allotment impugned is allowed to be made, the very hearing of the appeal would be prejudiced.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the appeal is stated to be under process.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice that this Court had earlier disposed of similar WP.No.19154 of 2014 by order dated 10.07.2014 wherein similar allotment in favour of the Commissioner of Income Tax was questioned relating to the very same land on the ground that the appeal is pending before the Joint Collector.
5. During the hearing of the said writ petition, it was noticed by this Court that the Collector had merely given advance possession to the Income Tax Department pending final orders on allocation.
In the present case also, the instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader show that advance possession was given to respondent No.5 similar to the advance possession as given in WP.No.19154 of 2014.
In view of that, this writ petition is also disposed of with similar directions as in the aforesaid writ petition, as under:
“Admittedly the petitioners’ appeal before the Joint Collector is required to be heard and disposed of, which is already stated to be posted for final disposal.
The impugned order of the Collector, which was dated as early as 06.02.2014, only gives advance possession pending final orders on allocation. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any allocation, as such, and the petitioners’ apprehension as well as the contention that it is alienated in favour of respondent No.5 does not appear to be correct. In any case, the claim of the petitioners would depend upon their success in the appeal and subject to the final orders thereon. The allocation in favour of respondent No.5 would, therefore, depend upon the success of the petitioners in the said appeal as well as other circumstances. Since there is no allocation even as per the impugned order, in my view, no cause of action subsists in the present writ petition at this stage.”
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 2, 2014 DSK