Disposed

Chandragiri Govindamma v. the Tahsildar

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2021WP/7343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Revenue authorities to dispose of the petitioner's mutation application within four weeks if it complies with the mandatory requirements of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Writ Petition is disposed of with costs waived.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose the application/representation dated 11.10.2019 within four weeks from receipt of copy of this order if compliant with mandatory requirements.

Chandragiri Govindamma Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7343 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declare the delay and inaction on the part of the respondent No.1 in considering and disposing of the application dated 11.10.2019 submitted by the petitioner for mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in the place of her husband in respect of the land extent Ac 0.56 cents in Sy.No 186/1 and Ac. 2.69 cents in Sy.No 186/4 of G.Konduru Village G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District and issue of e-pattadar pass book as arbitrary illegal and contrary the provisions under A.P Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and its Rules and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in the place of her husband in respect of the land extent Ac 0.56 cents in Sy.No 186/1 and Ac 2.69 cents in Sy.No 186/4 of G.Konduru Village G.Konduru Mandal Krishna District and issue e-pattadar pass book forthwith in the interest of justice.”

¶6

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the husband of the petitioner is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac. 0.56 cents in Sy.No. 186/1 and Ac. 2.69 cents in Sy.No.186/4 of G. Konduru village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District and his name was mutated in Revenue Records. The 1^st respondent issued Pattadar Pass Book in his favour. The husband of the petitioner died on 04.09.2013 leaving behind the petitioner and her son. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-6-A, dated 11.10.2019 to the 1^st respondent through Mee-Seva for mutation of her name in the Pattadar Pass Book. But the respondents did not consider her request, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner and requested to issue a direction as stated supra.

¶7

¶8

During hearing, learned counsel for petitioners limited his request to dispose of the application/representation, dated 11.10.2019. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the said application, in accordance with law.

¶9

Recording the submissions of the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, it would suffice to issue direction to the respondents to dispose of representation/application, dated 11.10.2019 submitted by the petitioner within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the said application/ representation is incompliance 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.

¶10

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶11

Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶12

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶13

Date: 14.07.2021 KK

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.7343 OF 2021

¶17

Date: 14.07.2021

¶18

Chandragiri Govindamma v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandragiri Govindamma v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golamari Srinivas Reddy Vs T. Swathi

Vattikuti Phanipriya, E.G.Dist Vs the Dist Collector, Krishna Dist and 2 Others

Katta LeelammaATNelamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasu Rayapa Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt.Rudra Sampurnamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppu Govindarajulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh