THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.899, 905, 911, 915, 916, 917, 928, 931, 940, 945, 953, 956 & 957 of 2014 Between: C.Sailaja And Dated 20th January, 2014 …Petitioner (W.P.No.899 of 2014) The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents (W.P.No.899 of 2014) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Jayaram Reddy (W.P.No.899 of 2014) Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (W.P.No.899 of 2014) The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These writ petitions involve common facts. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together.
The petitioners are in possession of different extents of lands. While they claim that they are the absolute owners of the lands in their occupation, respondent No.3 has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) for resumption of the lands on the ground that they were assigned lands and purchased in violation of the provisions of the Act. By separate orders passed by respondent No.3, the lands were resumed on the finding that they were purchased by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the resumption orders passed in the year 2007, the petitioners filed appeals before respondent No.2. All the appeals were disposed of by the said respondent by his common order in D.Dis/E/698/2010, dated 07.05.2010, whereby he has set aside the resumption orders and directed respondent No.3 to hold a fresh enquiry by examining the original DKT files.
The grievance of the petitioners is that though nearly four years have elapsed from the time of remand of the cases, respondent No.3 has not been completing the enquiry and passing fresh orders.
When these writ petitions came up in the pre lunch session, they were passed over to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) to obtain instructions on the status of the enquiry before respondent No.3. In the post lunch session, on instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the enquiry is still pending.
In my opinion, there is no justification for respondent No.3 in keeping the enquiry pending though substantial time has passed from the time of remand by respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass orders afresh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th January, 2014
VGB