D. Sreenivasulu v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WP .NO:22648 of 2011 Between:

1 D. Sreenivasulu S/o Obulesu 2 B. Vannurappa S/o B. Subbanna 3 B. Krishnamurthy S/o Narayana ..... Petitioners AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing orders on the petitioners stay petition or on the appeal filed on 21.07.2011, against the impugned notices of the 3rd respondent issued on 5.2.2011 & 27.3.2011 in Rc. No.

B/62/2011, is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioners 1 & 2 respective houses and the 3rd petitioner respective structure in an extent of 18x36 Feet's in Guntakal, Anantapur District; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and the order of the High court dated 11-08-2011 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Advocate for the Petitioners and of Govt.

ORDER: Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas), on instructions, states that the petitioners had merely filed an application before the third respondent, and even before any order was passed by him, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the second respondent; and even though no orders were passed by the second respondent, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that orders are passed but are not communicated. Learned Government Pleader would assert that the matter was still pending before the third respondent and that orders would be passed shortly. While this Court was inclined to pass final orders directing the third respondent to dispose of the petitioners' application within a

specified period, Sri K. Ram Mohan Chowdary, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would request time to obtain instructions. Post after two weeks. I see no reason to extend the interim order granted by this Court on 11.08.2011. It is made clear that it is open to the third respondent to pass necessary orders in accordance with law and take action thereafter.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The District Collector, Anantapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District. ( 1 to 3 by RPAD) 4.2 CCs to the G.P.for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas) High court of A.P.Hyd.(O.UT) 5.One C.C.to Sri Kothapalli Ram Mohan Chowdary Advocate (OPUC) 6.one spare copy.

Bsr

HIGH COURT RR.J DATED 17-08-2011 POST AFTER TWO WEEKS.

ORDER

W.P.NO.22648 OF 2011

DIRECTION Bsr Dt. 18-8-2011 HIGH COURT RR.J DATED 17-08-2011

POST AFTER TWO WEEKS.

ORDER

W.P.NO.22648 OF 2011 DIRECTION