IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 33680 of 2014 BETWEEN S.Varaha Narasimham AND ... PETITIONER 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 petitioner is with respect to the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.3 being Inam Appeal Rc.No.4152/204/C. The said appeal is stated to have been filed by respondent No.5 on 04.08.2014 and the petitioner, whose fore-fathers were Archakas of Sri Madhava Swamy Temple of Madhavapura Village in Visakhapatnam, claim that the Inam was granted to their fore fathers and, as such, the enquiry into the inam application was initiated and though initially ryotwari patta was granted to respondent No.5, it is stated that enquiry was conducted but alleging that the said enquiry was conducted without notice, the parties had approached this court in W.P.No.18559 of 1997 which was allowed on 03.01.2002. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 has filed appeals viz., W.A.Nos.416 and 554 of 2002. This court by order, dated 30.09.2008, dismissed the said appeals. Thereafter, respondent No.5 has preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz., in Civil Appeal No.1524 of 2009 and the same was allowed by order, dated 27.02.2009, remanding the matter to the primary authority for considering the claim of both the parties and passing appropriate order. Petitioner thereafter filed a claim petition before respondent No.4 and the primary authority allowed the said claim petition on 18.03.2014. Questioning that the appeal is preferred by respondent No.5, which is pending before respondent No.3, and stay of operation of the order, dated 18.03.2014, was passed. Aggrieved by non-disposal of the said appeal, the present writ petition is filed.
3. After hearing both the learned counsel, I am of the view that the appeal, which is pending is required to be heard and disposed of at an early date.
4. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to hear and decide the said appeal, in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 4, 2014 LMV