High Court for State of TelanganaWP/28843/2015disposed of no costs

Adari Nooka Raju, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh -

2015-09-14Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 28843 of 2015 BETWEEN Adari Nooka Raju ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 14.09.2015 ORDER:- Heard.

2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging that the fourth respondent is trying to evict him high handedly without issuing any notice and places reliance upon paper publication in Eenadu Daily District Edition dated 14.08.2015 where the District Collector and the Joint Collector directed the fourth respondent to take appropriate action. Based on that paper report, petitioner alleges that the fourth respondent is likely to evict him. Further in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it is stated that his father occupied an extent of Ac.1-68 cents of Zeroit land in survey No.4/1 of Mukundapuram Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District in the year 1975. Petitioner along with his father is stated to have made an application for allotment of that land on 20.01.1998 by approaching the fourth respondent. Petitioner states that while he continues to be in possession, he has planted 150 coconut trees, which are in existence for the last more than 28 years, and if the petitioner is evicted from the said land, he will be put to irreparable loss.

3. Learned government pleader has received instructions and states that if the fourth respondent intends to take action against the petitioner, he will follow due process of law.

4. Keeping in view the said instructions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent not to evict the petitioner from the land aforesaid. However, the fourth respondent is at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner if he intends to take action against him and thereafter consider the explanation pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 14, 2015 LMV