Lonagala Raghava Rao, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Dated:16.04.2018 Between:

Lonagala Raghava Rao, S/o. Late Lonagala Pothunaidu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.1-50/1, Kommadi Village, 4th ward, Madhurawada, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. and others.

... Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

... Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

Petitioners are aggrieved by inclusion of property in Survey No.134/1, to an extent of Acres 1.94 cents and Survey No.134/2, to an extent of 0.2 cents, i.e., in total Acres 1.96 cents in Kommadi Revenue Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as under the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Aggrieved by the said inclusion, petitioners submitted a representation dated 21.11.2017 to the District Collector, alleging inaction on the said application and on the contrary, interfering with possession and try to dispossess the petitioners, without following the provisions of The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, this writ petition is filed.

2.

Since the petitioners have already filed application on 21.11.2017 and so far no order is made by the competent authority, this Court is not inclined to keep the writ petition pending.

3.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the District Collector to examine the claim of the petitioners for exclusion of the property, claimed as belonging to them,

from the list of prohibited properties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioners are in possession and that the respondents are trying to interfere and till a decision is made, there shall not be any interference. Considering the request, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession claimed by the petitioners, if the petitioners are in possession, till the decision is made by the Collector, as directed above. However, petitioners shall not make any change to the physical features of the land or create third party interest, till a decision is made by the Collector.

5. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 16.04.2018 SS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 16th APRIL, 2018 SS