This order adjudicates a writ petition challenging the Respondent's failure to consider representations regarding the transfer of leasehold rights. The Court directed the Respondent to consider the submissions within three months before disposing of the writ.
The respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' representation within three months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 17675 of 2004
Between:
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Spl. Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not considering and disposing of the representations dt. 15.09.2004 & 25.9.2004 as arbitrary, illegal, and unjust and consequently direct the Respondent to dispose of the representations forthwith, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
The only grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 25-09-2004 has not been properly considered for transferring the leasehold rights of the property in their favour in spite of the second petitioner addressing a letter dated 15-09-2004.
The very fact is that the representation itself is made on 25-09-2004 and the petitioners cannot complain the inaction on the part of the respondent without giving any breathing time to consider the same. However, the respondent is hereby directed to consider the said representation in the light of the letter addressed by the second petitioner dated 15-09-2004 and also the memorandum of understanding sent through letter dated 07-07-2004 within a period of three months from the date of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1st OCTOBER, 2004.
Note: furnish c.c. by 04-10-2004 B/o
kvni
To
2 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent was arbitary in not considering the representations dated 25/09/2004 and 15/09/2004 for transferring leasehold rights.
Whether the action of the respondent in not considering and disposing of the Petitioner's representation should be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.V. Ashwini and T. Vilasini
The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration
A.Gopal Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
