Koruprolu Peda Kannalu Naidu, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh ,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Dated:30.04.2018 Between:

Koruprolu Peda Kannalu Naidu, S/o. Late Balarama Murthy, Aged about 55 years, Cultivation, Resident of G.Kothuru Village, H/o.Gundupala Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh and others.

... Respondents The Court made the following:

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

Tahsildar, Golugonda, by order dated 18.07.2017, held that the transfer of property assigned violating the conditions of assignment and the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Revenue Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 06.03.2018, confirmed the decision of the Tahsildar.

Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred further appeal under Section 4-(A)(2) of the Act. Petitioner also claims that he filed application for grant of stay, pending second appeal. Alleging inaction and attempting to dispossess the petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought an order of stay of the orders of eviction pending consideration of the second appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the respondent authorities cut the paddy raised on the ground and taken away the paddy.

3.

Photographs filed along with the writ petition would disclose errection of the board by the Tahsildar, Golugonda, disclosing the subject land as Government Land. Therefore, at this stage, Court is not inclined to grant the order, more

so, when the second appeal filed by the petitioner along with stay application is pending for consideration. 4.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the stay application filed in the second appeal, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, is directed to consider the application for grant of stay and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law. The decision shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and shall be communicated. The Joint Collector shall take note of the fact that the time limit fixed is required to be complied, in view of the fact that petitioner claimed to have cultivated paddy crop and is ripe for harvesting and in fact, already, portion of the paddy is cut by the revenue authorities.

5.

Accordingly and with the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 30.04.2018 SS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 30th APRIL, 2018 SS