SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74110

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Kasimalla Bajaru – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Agent to Government – Respondent
WP 21343/2025



HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.21343 of 2025

ORDER

The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as under:

a) The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.12.26 guntas in sy.No.81/61/(61A) situated at payakari Yanambailu Village, Palvoncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The respondent No.3 instituted LTR Case No.3/2025/PVC before respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner is the non tribal and that his continued possession and right, title and interest over the subject land is prohibited by the Scheduled Area and Land Transfers Regulation 1959 and

1979 and prayed for eviction from the subject lands.

b) The petitioner contested the above said LTR Case No.3 of 2025 inter alia on the ground that the sale transaction has taken place prior to the coming into force of the Regulation No.1 of 1959 and Regulation No. 3 of 1970 and the same is not hit by the scheduled land transfer regulations.

c) The respondent No.2 by order dated 15.05.2025 directed that the petitioner shall be evicted from the subject land and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.1 – appellate authority on 30.06.2025 along with an interlocutory application seeking stay of the ejectment order passed by the respondent No.2.

d) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has not even numbered the appeal and thereby the petitioner is apprehending that he may be ejected in execution of the order of respondent No.2. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging the inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in not numbering the appeal filed by the petitioner.

the record. Though Respondent No.3 filed caveat, there is no

representation on his behalf.

the appeal filed by him before the respondent No.1 got

numbered.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances and since the very purpose of filing the writ petition is accomplished, the writ petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________________

JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Date: 30.07.2025

AS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top