IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26865 of 2014 BETWEEN P.Parasuramudu and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the representation filed by them pursuant to the directions of this court in the earlier petition viz., W.P.No.21314 of 2013, dated 24.07.2013, is still not being disposed of by the District Collector, respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners have filed another representation on 03.08.2013, but still no orders are passed.
4. I am afraid no relief can be granted to the petitioners in view of the orders already passed by this court in W.P.No.21314 of 2013, referred to above, and particularly, the relevant paragraph, which is extracted hereunder, deals with the entire matter giving appropriate directions. No further orders, therefore, can be passed nor can the earlier orders be modified by way of the present writ petition.
“In these facts and circumstances of the case, while declining to interfere with the eviction orders passed by respondent No.3, the petitioners are permitted to make representations to respondent No.2 for payment of compensation towards the value of the structures raised by them. Respondent No.2 shall entertain such representations and take a decision thereon, in the light of the Government Orders in force on the subject, within a period of two months from the date of making of representations by the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to remain in possession of their respective structures for a period of four weeks to enable them to secure alternative accommodation.”
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 12, 2014 LMV