Ande Babaiah , Babu v. The State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.28952 of 2017 ORDER :

Heard the counsel for petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent nos.1 to 4. None appears for respondent nos.5 and 6.

2.

The petitioners' grievance is that they have preferred a Revision to the 3rd respondent challenging the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sirisilla on 18.06.2015; that though the said Revision was filed on 19.07.2016, without passing any orders in the said application, the respondents have taken possession of the land from the petitioners under a panchanama and are now proposing to use the lands for construction of two-bed room houses to the poor, as decided by the 1st respondent.

3.

It is unfortunate that a Revision preferred as long back as on 19.07.2016 is kept pending by the 3rd respondent without deciding the same till date.

4.

If respondent nos.5 and 6 are allowed to make constructions of any structures in the said land it would render the Revision infructuous.

5.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the 3rd respondent is directed to decide the said Revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dt.18.06.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

MSR,J wp_28952_2017 ::2::

Sirisilla within two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order; and till the Revision is decided, the respondents shall maintain status quo prevailing as on today in all respects in the subject land. No order as to costs.

6.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 02-11-2017 Note : Issue C.C. by 06.11.2017.

B/o.

Ndr/*