Palina Krishna Murthy, Srikakulam Dist vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd 3 Ot
2024 Latest Caselaw 7734 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Palina Krishna Murthy, Srikakulam Dist vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd 3 Ot on 27 August, 2024

Author: R Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

APHC010516502016
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                     [3488]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

          TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                                   AND

                   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                      WRIT APPEAL No.1496 OF 2016

 Between:

    Palina Krishna Murthy                             ...APPELLANT

                                   AND

  State of Andhra Pradesh                           ...RESPONDENTS

Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue department, Hyderabad and three others.

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.RAJ KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: Ld. Govt. Pleader for Revenue

The Court made the following judgment:

1. The appellant being aggrieved with the steps being taken by the

respondents in interfering with his possession of Ac.1.00 of land in

Sy. No.35/3 of Vana Vishnupuram Village, Polaki Mandal,

Srikakulam District, had approached this Court by way of filing W.P.

No.15721 of 2021.

2. A learned single judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in W.P.M.P. No.20806 of 2012 had granted interim

27.08.2024.

protection by an order dated 24.05.2012. This interim protection

against the dispossession was sought to be vacated by way of

W.V.M.P. No.4323 of 2012. A learned single judge had vacated an

earlier order dated 24.05.2012 by way of an order dated

18.10.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has

been filed.

3. Sri P. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the appellant had moved another W.P. No.1200 of 2017 against

the award proceedings in which the respondent under the Land

Acquisition Act sought to take possession. In this writ petition, an

interim direction to protect the possession of the petitioner is said to

have been passed.

4. In that view of the matter, nothing further would survive in the writ

appeal and the same is dismissed without costs.

5. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ appeal shall

stand closed.

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_____________ HARINATH.N, J

BV