Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boilu Ravindranadh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.846, 850 and 851 of 2016
(Proceedings through physical mode)
W.A.No.846 of 2016
Datla Venkata Appala Prasadaraju
S/o. Jagannatharaju, aged about 62 years,
Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Kavulavada,
Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District,
and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. A Satya Prasad, Senior Counsel
for Mr. Prakash Buddarapu
Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr. N. Harinath, Asst. Solicitor General
W.A.No.850 of 2016
Jeeru Gurraiah, S/o. Jeeru Gurraiah,
Aged about 62 years, Occ: Cultivation,
R/o. Gudepuvalasa (V), Bhogapuram Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others.
.. Respondents
2 HCJ & MSM,J
W.A.Nos.846, 850 & 851 of 2016
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. A Satya Prasad, Senior Counsel
for Mr. Prakash Buddarapu
Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr. N. Harinath, Asst. Solicitor General
W.A.No.851 of 2016
Bollu Ravindranadh,
S/o. Late China Satyanarayana,
Aged 65 years, Occ: cultivation,
R/o. Pedda Veedhi, Bhogapuram Post & Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. A Satya Prasad, Senior Counsel
for Mr. Prakash Buddarapu
Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr. N. Harinath, Asst. Solicitor General
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 09.11.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
All these appeals are interconnected as they arise out of similar
interim orders and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. W.A.No.846 of 2016 arises out of the interim order dated 25.01.2016
passed in W.P.M.P.No.42531 of 2015 in W.P.No.32956 of 2015, W.A.No.850
of 2016 arises out of the interim order dated 17.02.2016 passed in
W.P.M.P.No.42644 of 2015 in W.P.No.33034 of 2015 and W.A.No.851 of
3 HCJ & MSM,J
W.A.Nos.846, 850 & 851 of 2016
2016 arises out of the interim order dated 17.03.2016 passed in
W.P.M.P.No.10954 of 2016 in W.P.No.8639 of 2016.
3. Contending that the learned single Judge erred in granting only stay
of dispossession of the writ petitioners pending final disposal of the writ
petitions, instead of granting stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of
the notification impugned in the writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners
filed these appeals. After these appeals have been entertained, the main writ
petitions have been withdrawn from the single Bench and listed before us to
be heard along with these appeals.
4. As the main writ petitions are before us and the interim orders passed
way back in the year 2016 are in force for all these years, we deem it
appropriate to decide the issues involved in the writ petitions by continuing
the interim orders till the final disposal of the cases, instead of adjudicating
upon the validity of the interim orders at this length of time in these appeals.
Accordingly, as we have decided to take up the writ petitions for final
disposal, we do not feel it necessary to keep these appeals pending.
5. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter,
these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
IBL
