Mohammed Ghouse Ahmed, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH W.P.No. 25361 of 2015 Between:

Mohammed Ghouse Ahmed and another ... Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12 .8.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals No Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 25361 of 2015 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement dated 7.8.2015 of the Tahasildar, Vijayawada Urban in L.G.No. 302/84 wherein the petitioners were directed to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Government within two days, otherwise they will be evicted forcibly on 10.8.2015. The petitioners question the said endorsement on the ground that they were not parties before the District Judge & Chairman under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Krishna, Machilipatnam nor they were aware of pendency of the said litigation. The petitioners came to know of the impugned endorsement just two days prior to filing of the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the revenue authorities are executing authorities in terms of Rule 15 of the A.P.

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 and the impugned endorsement was passed by them in execution of the orders passed under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, interdiction of their execution is not warranted under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the petitioners have efficacious and appropriate remedy of filing a claim petition before the Court/Tribunal.

Hence this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The petitioners are free to raise all their contentions regarding the order of Court/Tribunal as well as execution proceedings. Miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt.12.8.2015 KR