Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA J
Bonthu Bikshalu(died) and Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners challenged property possession interference without notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court noted a prior resumption order; lack of appeal makes petition unmaintainable. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court denies mandamus but allows petitioners to file appeal. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER:
Challenging the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners’ writ schedule property without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, the petitioners has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was the assignee of the subject land. However, since the subject land was found to be in possession of one Sri Gampa Sambaiah, notice in Form – I & II were issued to the petitioner for resumption of the land in terms of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 , the order of resumption was passed on 25.11.2011 after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the same, it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
