IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR BETWEEN WRIT PETITION Nos. 21688, 21697, 21715, 21757, 21942, AND 21945 of 2014 N.Lakshmi and others AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Heard.
2. All these writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of appellate authority, respondent No.2 herein, in considering and disposing of the appeals filed by the respective petitioners under Section 4-A of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, against the resumption orders passed by the Tahsildar, Tiruvuru with respect to the land of each of the petitioners. It appears that the proceedings were initiated against six petitioners each having Ac.0-48 cents. It appears that an extent of Ac.18-79 cents in R.S.No.298 of Patha Tiruvuru Village of Tiruvuru Mandal, was distributed to 39 beneficiaries and Ac.0-48 cents of land was assigned to each one of them. Petitioners are stated to be six out of the said 39 beneficiaries. It appears that on finding violations of conditions of assignment and irregular encroachments, they were issued Form I notice and as no explanation was received, orders of resumption were passed by the Tahsildar and the said orders of resumption are questioned by each petitioner in the respective appeals before the appellate authority, respondent No.2 herein. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the appeals though filed as early as in March, 2013, the said appeals are kept pending and the matters were not heard.
3. Learned government pleader has received instructions and it is evident therefrom that each of the petitioners are treated as encroachers and the land with respect to each one of them is resumed. Details thereof are set out in the table below:
4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have preferred appeals and the said appeals are pending before the appellate authority. Since the appeals are said to be pending from March, 2013, in my view, it would be just and appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions by directing respondent No.2-appellate authority to consider and dispose of the said appeals, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioners and the affected parties, if any, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
With the above direction, these writ petitions are 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 August 20, 2014 LMV