The Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226. Not deciding on merits, the Court directed respondents to dispose of two specific Mee Seva applications within four weeks, adhering to relevant Act provisions.
Direction to respondents to dispose of Mee Seva Application Nos. RMU012106365536 and RMU012106365313 within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.23720 OF 2021
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not considering the case of the petitioners to mutate their names in Record of Rights and issuing of Title Deed cum Epass book to the 1St petitioner to an extent of Ac.1-11 cts in R.S No.137/2 and to the 2nd petitioner to an extent of Ac.0-35 ½ in R.S No.87/1 in Prodduvaka Revenue Village Mudinepalli Mandal Krishna Dist are illegal arbitrary contrary to law and violation of provisions of Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to consider to mutate the names of the petitioners in R.O.R and issue the Title deed cum E-Passbook to their above respective lands”
Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri T.V.V. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners limited his request to dispose of the Mee Seva Applications No.RMU012106365536 dated 15.03.2020 and No.RMU012106365313 dated 15.03.2020 submitted by the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the Mee Seva Applications No.RMU012106365536 dated 15.03.2020 and No.RMU012106365313 dated 15.03.2020 submitted by the petitioners, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities.
Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
MSM,J WP_23720 _2021
2
in “ The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1 ”, wherein the Apex Court held that, such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of Mee Seva Application Nos.RMU012106365536 dated 15.03.2020 and No.RMU012106365313 dated 15.03.2020 submitted by the petitioners, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of directing
the respondents to dispose of Mee Seva Application Nos.RMU012106365536 dated 15.03.2020 and No.RMU012106365313 dated 15.03.2020 submitted by the petitioners within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the said Mee Seva applications are in compliance of the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971(Act No. 26 of 1971) and rules framed therein. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date:20.10.2021 Sp
1 2019 (8) SCALE 544
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should issue a direction to dispose of pending Mee Seva applications referring to the Apex Court judgment.
Relief for mutation of names and issuance of Title Deed cum Epass book.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of India v. P. VenkateshReferred¶7
2019 (8) SCALE 544
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioners
The Respondents
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
