IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19154 of 2014 BETWEEN T. Narayanamma and others AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B. DEVADAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5;
and Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.
2. Petitioners, who claim to be entitled to the piece of land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Survey No.616/2 of Adavitekkalapadu Village, Guntur Mandal, questioned the orders of resumption dated 10.05.2005, and filed an appeal pending before the Joint Collector, Guntur. This court by order, dated 28.03.2014 in W.P.No.8444 of 2014, directed the Joint Collector to dispose of the appeal atleast by the end of June.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it was listed for hearing, but now posted to this month for disposal.
4. The present writ petition is filed by same petitioners questioning the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, dated 03.12.2013, whereunder advance possession of the said land was given to Income Tax Department for protection and construction of compound wall pending final orders on allocation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that if such allocation is permitted, their claim for the very same land, which is pending in appeal before the Joint Collector, would be prejudiced.
6. Admittedly the petitioners’ appeal before the Joint Collector is required to be heard and disposed of, which is already stated be posted for final disposal. The impugned order of the Collector, which was dated as early as 03.12.2013, only gives advance possession pending final orders on allocation. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any allocation, as such, and the petitioners’ apprehension as well as the contention that it is alienated in favour of respondent No.6 does not appear to be correct. In any case, the claim of the petitioners would depend upon their success in the appeal and subject to the final orders thereon. The allocation in favour of respondent No.6 would, therefore, depend upon the success of the petitioners in the said appeal as well as other circumstances. Since there is no allocation even as per the impugned order, in my view, no cause of action subsists in the present writ petition at this stage.
The writ petition is, accordingly, 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 July 10, 2014 LMV