Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 684 (TS)

Banoth Sakru v. State of Telangana

2025-05-21

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “to issue Writ or Order Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not granting stay of dispossession pertaining to the land in an extent of Ac.2.20 gts., in Sy.No.234 (Sy.No.57/1/241/12/1) of Morampalli Banjar, Bhurgampadu Mandal, Bhadradi Kothagudem District, of the petitioner pursuant to filing of unnumbered Appeal, dated 29.04.2025 preferred against the eviction proceedings dated 17.03.2025 of the 3rd respondent issued under section 6 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 pending disposal of the unnumbered appeal dated 29.04.2025 and pass.” 2. Heard Mr.Kovvuri Krishna Kishore, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.20 gts., in Sy.No.234 situated at Morampalli Banjar, Bhuragampadu Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. He further submitted that respondent No.3 issued notice on 25.02.2025 under Section 7 of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Respondent No.3, without considering the said explanation, passed the order under Section 6 of the Act on 17.03.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed statutory appeal on 29.04.2025 invoking the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, before the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2. Along with said appeal, the petitioner filed an application for grant of stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner from the subject property. However, respondent No.2 has not passed any order either in the stay application or in the main appeal. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 will consider the stay application and will pass orders in accordance with law and requested this Court to grant reasonable time. 5. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 will consider the stay application and will pass orders in accordance with law and requested this Court to grant reasonable time. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, either in stay application or main appeal filed by the petitioner on 29.04.2025, after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondents in the appeal within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till such time, respondent No.3 is directed not to take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. 6. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.