Disposed

M. Laxmamma, v. The Mandal aRevenue Officer

Telangana HC4 Apr 2005WP/7300/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for correction of revenue records regarding her late husband's land claim. The High Court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file an appropriate correction application before the concerned officer.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to the petitioner and successors to make an appropriate application before the first respondent for correction of entries in Revenue Records.

M. Laxmamma, Vs The Mandal aRevenue Officer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 7300 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Laxmamma, W/o. M. Gandaiah, R/o. H.No. 4-52/2, Old Boingepally, Secunderabad.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Mandal aRevenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Balanagar,

¶12

R.R.District.

¶13

2 The Revenue Divisinal Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a Writ, Order, or direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandmaus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the Representation of the petitioners late Husband dt. 17.5.2001 under the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and consequently declare the inaction of the Respondents in carrying out corrections/Amendments in the Revenue Records pertaining to the petitioenrs land in Sy.No.43, 44, 57 & 58 of Boinepally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

This Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶17

O R D E R:

¶18

It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner who has submitted an application on 17-05-2001 requesting the first respondent to include his name in the Revenue Records in respect of the land situated in Survey Nos.43, 44, 57 and 58 of Boinepally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is no more. The petitioner states that her husband died after the said application was submitted.

¶19

In the circumstances, the relief as prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner and other successors, if any, to make an appropriate application before the first respondent for correction of entries in Revenue Records in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.43, 44, 57 & 58 of Boinepally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District together with the documentary evidence, if any, to substantiate their claim. If any such application is made, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs.

(G. ROHINI, J)

Date: 04-04-2005

ghn

1 The Mandal aRevenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Balanagar, R.R.District.

¶26

2 The Revenue Divisinal Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District.

¶27

3 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)

¶28

4 Two CD copies.

M. Laxmamma, v. The Mandal aRevenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Laxmamma, v. The Mandal aRevenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puli Sanjeev, Vs The Regional passport officer

B.Laxman, Vs District Collector

V.Rambabu, Vs The District Collector

R.a.S.Educational and Rural Development Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R.A.S. Educational and Rural Development Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner