THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 904 of 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. Poornasri, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2012
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.Nos.12375
and 12377 of 2012. The present appeal pertains to W.P.No.12377 of
2012.
3. We have been informed that no appeal has been preferred
against the order dismissing W.P.No.12377 of 2012.
4. If that be the case, the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 26.04.2012 has attained finality qua W.P.No.12375 of 2012.
5. In so far the present appeal is concerned, relevant finding of the
learned Single Judge is as follows:
The impugned notice under Section 10(5) of the Act
was served on the respective petitioners on 08.03.2006.
::2::
Order under Section 10(6) of the Act was passed
on 20.06.2007 on which day total extent of 1,03,117.18 Sq. Mts
of land belonging to both the petitioners was taken
possession under panchanama.
.......
In case notices under Section 10(5) of the Act to the petitioners and the proceedings and panchanama under Section 10(6) of the Act are in violation of any interim stay orders passed by this Court in any W.P.M.P, then the petitioners should have taken steps against the authorities for violation of the said interim stay order passed by this Court. Notices under Section 10(5) of the Act were received by T.Ravindra Reddy, who is son of the petitioner in W.P.No.12377 of 2012. The said service is valid service in law as the person who received the notices is an adult male member of the family to which both the petitioners belong to. Suppressing the proceedings under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act prior to the Repealing Act 15 of 1999 coming into force, the petitioners obtained order dated 02.12.2008 in W.P.No.22804 of 2003. The petitioners could not make out that action of the official respondents in the proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act are in any way contrary to any orders passed by this Court.
6. On due consideration, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2012.
7. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
::3::
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 19.09.2022 LUR