Disposed

Murari Venkateswara Rao v. The 5tate of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2022WP/5528/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of respondent authorities in considering a representation and legal notice regarding land title deeds. The court directed the authorities to dispose of the said matters strictly in accordance with the law within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent-authorities are directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2015 and legal notice dated 16.02.2015 strictly in accordance with the law within four weeks.

Murari Venkateswara Rao Vs The 5tate of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.5528 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“…. to issue a Writ of Mandamus , declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in considering the Representation of the Petitioner herein dated 13.02.2015 and Notice dated 16.02.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to provide opportunity of hearing before issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed to any third parties with regard to the land in an extent of Ac 3.00 cents and Ac.4.20 put together Ac.7.20 cents in Survey No.106/1 situated at Vadlapatla Nutanam Villge Kamavarapukota Mandal West Godavari District ....”

¶7

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during course of hearing, Sri V.B.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for petitioners limited his request to the extent of disposing of the representation dated 13.02.2015 made by the petitioner and legal notice dated 16.02.2015, pending before respondent authorities, without touching the merits of the case.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents conceded to dispose of the

¶9

¶10

representation dated 13.02.2015 made by the petitioner and also legal notice dated 16.02.2015, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities.

¶11

Recording the submission made by both the counsel and in view of the observations of the Apex Court 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 and they do not serve to the cause of justice, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition without going into the merits of the case, interest of justice would be better served if the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation said to have been made by the petitioners.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities, to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners dated 13.02.2015 and also legal notice dated 16.02.2015, strictly in accordance with the law, if not already disposed of, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶14

¶15

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending,

¶16

if any, shall also stand closed.

¶17

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶18

Date : 03.11.2022 AVTP

¶19

¶20

107

¶21

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 5528 OF 2015

¶23

Date : 03.11.2022

¶24

AVTP

¶25

Murari Venkateswara Rao v. The 5tate of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Venkateswara Rao v. The 5tate of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah Vs the State of Ap

A.Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Devineni Gopi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O

K.Kesavaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Macherla Chennamma, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Pri. Secretary

Kasthuri Manayam, Chittoor Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.