Telangana High Court
Ch. Danalakshmi vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 11 March, 2020
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.5396 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties.
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :
"...............WRIT OF MANDAMUS
declaring the impugned proceedings
No.B/1098/2019-26 dated 18-11-2019 issued by the 4th respondent in resuming the petitioner House Plot to an extent of 2000 sq.yards in Sy.No.79/39 situated at Narsapur Village and Mandal, Medak District in favour of the Government is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the above described house plot to the petitioner to enable herself enjoy as usal and to grant such other relief.
Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
It has been contended by the petitioner that she is landless poor and she has purchased the subject land from the legal heirs of the original assignee and she has constructed a house and presently residing in the said house. While so, the 4th respondent had initiated proceedings against her for having purchased the assigned land and passed impugned proceedings on 18.11.2019. Pursuant to the said order, the subject land was resumed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an 2 appeal before the 3rd respondent on 17.01.2020 along with the Interlocutory Application seeking suspension of the orders passed by the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she had preferred an appeal along with stay application, the 3rd respondent/appellate authority neither disposed of the appeal nor considered the stay application.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent/appellate authority to atleast consider the stay application preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with stay application is pending with the 3rd respondent/appellate authority, the 3rd respondent/appellate authority would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent/appellate authority to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks and the stay application preferred by the 3 petitioner be considered and disposed of within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 11th March 2020 dv