← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/24512/2015disposed of no costs

Mandadi Jagannadha Sastry, S/O. Ramakrishna Sastry v. The State Of A.P.

2015-08-17Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.24512 of 2015 BETWEEN Mandadi Jagannadha Sastry.

... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

No 3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

ORDER:

The writ petition is directed against the impugned notice dated 26.03.2015.

2. However, on the last date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2015, it was found that the aforesaid notice is not referrable to any provision of law nor is in accordance with the proforma prescribed, if it has to be construed as one under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prevention of Transfer) Act, 1977. In view of that, status quo was directed to be maintained.

3. Learned Government Pleader now states, on instructions, that if any action is warranted against the petitioner, the fourth respondent be granted liberty to issue appropriate notice in accordance with the provisions of law giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation.

4. In view of that, it is appropriate to grant leave to the fourth respondent to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation and thereafter, consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till the completion of exercise, as above, status quo already granted on 05.08.2015 with respect to the impugned notice shall be maintained and the impugned notice shall not be given effect to. The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 17, 2015 DSK