IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28375 of 2014 BETWEEN Devara Sakkubai.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, West Godavari and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent is threatening the petitioner to vacate and trying to dispossess her from the land in question. Petitioner states that she was given notice under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 alleging that she has transferred the land to one Tella Nageswara Rao. Petitioner states that she has given a detailed reply to the said show cause notice on 22.08.2014 denying the allegations. Petitioner states that though the said reply is filed long back and the matter is required to be considered by the third respondent, without consideration of the reply, attempts are being made by the third respondent and his subordinates to dispossess the petitioner. Specific allegation is made in the affidavit that the staff of the third respondent visited the petitioner’s land on 18.09.2014 and pressurized her to vacate the same. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. Since the petitioner was, admittedly, given a notice calling upon her to submit explanation, if any and since the proceedings under Rule 3 of the Rules, referred to above, are pending with the third respondent, unless appropriate decision is taken by the third respondent, in accordance with law, the highhanded dispossession of the petitioner cannot be approved nor the allegations of the petitioner that the third respondent is acting contrary to the provisions of law can be accepted. However, in order to protect the petitioner from the apprehension expressed, the third respondent is directed to consider the cause shown by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till such orders are passed, not to take any action to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 22, 2014 DSK