Disposed

V.Rambabu, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC1 Apr 2005WP/7109/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus, the High Court directed the District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer to promptly consider the petitioners' objections regarding the proposed grant of house site pattas, ordering a decision within a week.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Respondents 1 and 2 directed to consider objections and pass orders within one week.

V.Rambabu, Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 7109 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. V.Rambabu, S/o.Late Apparao,

¶9

R/o.Indira Colony, Rayavaram (V) &(M), E.G.District.

¶10

2. P.Rambabu, S/o.Apparao,

¶11

R/o.Indira Colony, Rayavaram (V) &(M), E.G.District.

¶12

.... PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1. The District Collector, East Godavari District, at Kakinada.

¶15

2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶16

3. The Mandal Revenue officer, Rayavaram, E.G.District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to grant house site pattas on the road margin in Sy.Nos.102, 103 & 104 of Indira colony of Rayavaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioners dt.5-3-2005 in respect of the proposed action of the respondents to grant house site pattas.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶22

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO : 7109 of 2005

¶24

O R D E R:

¶25

The petitioners allege that steps are being taken to grant house site pattas on the road margin in Sy.Nos.102, 103 & 104 of Indira Colony of Rayavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District obstructing free passage. In the circumstances, the petitioners made a representation to the 3^rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Rayavaram marking copies to the respondents 1 and 2. The said representations were received in the office of the respondents on 8-3-2005. The only grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the objections raised by them, the respondents are proceeding with grant of pattas. Hence the writ petition.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for revenue appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 8-3-2005 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possibly preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . No costs.

¶28

01-04-2005

¶29

Note: CC by two days B/o Mjl/*

¶30

¶31

1. The District Collector, East Godavari District, at Kakinada.

¶32

2. The Revenue Divisional officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶33

3. The Mandal Revenue officer, Rayavaram, E.G.District.

¶34

4. 2 CCs to G.P for Revenue, High court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶35

5. 2 CD copies.

V.Rambabu, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rambabu, v. The District Collector

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

Municipal Workers Welfare Society gudivada, Vs The Commissioenr, Gudivada

Kola haranath, Vs Vishakapatnam Municipal Corporation

M/s. Mc. Dowell and Company Limited, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Puli Sanjeev, Vs The Regional passport officer

B.Laxman, Vs District Collector

Buddana Srisaibabu, Vs Municipal Corporation of Kakinada