IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.26308, 26309, 26310, 26320, 26321, 26325 and 26326 of 2014 BETWEEN Dharavath Ramu 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:
COMMON ORDER:
Heard.
2. All these writ petitions arise out of identical orders of resumption passed by the Tahsildar, Khammam, respondent No.3 herein. The subject matter of all the resumption orders is with regard to different extents of land in survey No.30/28 situated at Raghunadhapalem Revenue Village, Khammam (Urban) Mandal, Khammam District. The said orders of resumption was passed on 05.08.2014 with respect to each of the petitioner in these writ petitions on the ground that they are found to be unauthorized assignees of the assigned lands and the land, in question, was purchased from the assignee by the purchaser in contravention of sub-clauses 1 and 2 of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977. Aggrieved by the said orders, each petitioner preferred appeals before respondent No.2, which are pending. The said appeals together with the stay petitions, therefore, are stated to be pending without any orders thereon and thereby, petitioners apprehend that if the appellate authority does not take up the appeals and pass appropriate orders at least to the extent of interim applications for stay, petitioners would be dispossessed in execution of orders of respondent No.3. Apprehending dispossession, therefore, these writ petitions are filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader has taken instructions in the matter and states that respondent No.2 would consider and pass appropriate orders in the respective appeals expeditiously.
4. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions by directing respondent No.2 to fix a date for hearing after notice to the petitioners and take up the said appeals and hear and decide at least the interim applications for stay filed by the petitioners thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till appropriate orders are passed by respondent No.2, as directed above, the resumption orders of respondent No.3, which are impugned in the appeals, shall, however, remain stayed subject to orders that would be passed by respondent No.2, as directed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 16, 2014 LMV