ORDER

respondents.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliet "....to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMT f lzo 1 zoci, u n_a u tho ri ze J -icc-u il ; :;, ":l;,t li fff ilTr,.T !:[:"; t";l il Lanserhouse village, Gorconda Manaar, Hydeliil l; ,ii;# arbitrary and in violation of provisions of a p. L"rd E;.;;;;;;;iil:ffi and violation :jjX::t 21 & 300-4 of consritution Jirar"lri i"rtq.i'n"try r"t rriae tl"

Heard Smt.T.padmaja, learned counsel, representing Sri T.D Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ieamed Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of tlre

3. Leamed counsel for the pedtioner submits that the pedtioner is one of the Members of Defence Civilian Employees Cooperative Housing society Limited and t].e said Society purchased an extent of Ac.72.37 gts. of land in Survey l,[o.7] of Langer House, Golconda Tahasil, Hyderabad, for the dwelling houses of the Members on 27.OS. 19 29. The petitioner a.llotted a plot bearing No.75/3 to an extent of 120 sq. yards in Survey No.7l of Langerhouse Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, on 24.04.1994, and since then the pedtioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and constructed a house and to*"::r""tricity s€rvice connection and water connection and.also

dated 28.0 1.20 1 o or n".oo,Yl !-"t:it"^ ^{th: Proceedings N o'c}

\ paying taxes to the respective departments' Whiie things stood thus' respondent No 3 issued show-cause notice dated 18'01'2O1O under Section of the A'P' Land Encroachment Act' 1905 (for short' the Act') alleging that the petitioner had encroached the Government property' Pursuant to the same' petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 28.0 1.2O 10. Respondent No 3' without considering the same and without giving opportunity of hearing' passed the impugned order dated 2a.Ol.2[llunder Section 6 of the Act and the same is gross violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to lau''

4. Per contro,Iearned Assistant Government Pleader submits that petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal as provided under section 1o of the Act, straightaway approached this court and filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law'

5. lrarned counsel for the petitioner' by way of reply' submits that in similar circurnstances' the Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.P.No.2O97 of 2O1O' dated l2'O8'2013 and placed a copy of the said order before this court. He requested this court to pass similar order in this case

6. In view of the above said submission' without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 12.O8.2013 passed by this Court in W.p.No.2907 of 2010, as follows:

cSlnce the writ pefifion ls pearti,rg for a long time, the peHtioner is allou appttcatioaror.oou"o:::"t""r'"".["L:f :":t:;:

appeal ls preferred sithla four weeks from date, the appellate authority shall coasider the applicaUoa for condoaafioa of detay tat t,,g rote of the peudency of the rrrit pe*tion. The appellate authority w r consider the aforesald pendeacy as a grouad for coadoniag the delay.

If ao appeal rs preferred urrthin .iour weeks, the issue wiII be a crosed chapter. For four wee&s, the respoudeats r r stay thelr hauds. It ls clear that the appellate authority shall aot be lnfluenced by aay of the observatious Eade fui the writ petiHou. Mere fiIing of appeal will aot be taken as stay of operation