IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28729 of 2014 BETWEEN Kondapalli Sai Gopal Rao @ Sai Ram AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Respondent No.4 passed an order against the petitioner in L.T.R. Case No.96/2013/KGM, dated 04.03.2014. Petitioner states that he has preferred an appeal on 15.09.2014 before respondent No.3 along with an interim application for stay. While the said appeal and the stay petition is stated to be pending and no date is so far fixed by respondent No.3, it appears that respondent No.4 has taken immediate steps for execution of the said order. According to the petitioner, a paper panchanama was prepared as if the land is handed over to respondent No.11 on 16.09.2014 itself. Petitioner, therefore, seeks to challenge the order of respondent No.4 in this writ petition on the ground that it is arbitrary and it is passed without verification of the record.
3. It is evident that the petitioner has preferred a regular appeal against the order passed by respondent No.4 and the appeal along with the stay petition is pending before respondent No.3.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s aforesaid appeal along with the stay petition and pass appropriate orders on the interim application for stay within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till respondent No.3 passes appropriate orders, as directed above, status quo, as existing as on today, with regard to the land shall be maintained and the same shall be subject to the orders that would be passed by respondent No.3. After passing appropriate interim order, respondent No.3 is free to fix a date for hearing of the appeal and then hear and dispose of the appeal also expeditiously.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 24, 2014 LMV