Yanati Siidhar v. K Tiruvallur

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI WRIT APPEAL NO.1360 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the ad interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.27680 of 2017 dated 22.08.2017 whereby the learned Single Judge, while ordering notice before admission and granting Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants (respondent Nos.6 and 7) time to file counter and posting the matter after four weeks, directed the official respondents not to disburse the amount of compensation to the unofficial respondents in the meanwhile.

The case of the respondents-writ petitioners is that the Land Reforms Tribunal and other officials of the Government had colluded with respondents 5 to 7; and though the subject land vested in the State, as it was ceiling surplus land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holding) Act, 1973, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to acquire the subject land; and compensation is sought to be paid to the appellant-unofficial respondents for the lands so acquired. The dispute, in short, relates to whether or not the earlier order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, holding that the subject land is not ceiling surplus land, is vitiated by fraud.

If the subject land is not ceiling surplus land, the State Government would then be justified in issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the subject land.

vests in the State Government, in which event the State Government cannot acquire its own land.

The question whether the earlier order of the Land Reforms Tribunal is vitiated by illegalities/fraud can only be examined in the Writ Petition after a counter affidavit is filed. Setting aside the ad interim order under appeal, would result in compensation being paid to the appellant-unofficial respondents, and would amount to allowing the Writ Petition itself. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this appeal as the appellants can as well file a petition to vacate the interim order. It is brought to our notice by Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners that the appellants have filed a petition to vacate the stay, and the said petition has already been numbered. Leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the petition seeking vacation of the interim order, we see no reason to exercise jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to interfere with the ad interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the appellants from requesting the learned Single Judge to take up the vacate stay petition at an early date. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. _________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) _________________ (J.UMA DEVI, J) 18th September 2017 RRB