Disposed

Shettypally Balaiah, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC12 Apr 2005WP/8117/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land revenue dispute, petitioners challenged the first respondent's inaction on their stay petition against an order deleting their names from records. The High Court directed the first respondent to decide the stay application within two weeks and stayed the impugned order's implementation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the stay application within two weeks; stay on the order deleting names from records pending that disposal.

Shettypally Balaiah, Vs The Joint Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8117 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Shettypally Balaiah, S/o. Late Mankaiah, Muthwalliguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

2 Shettypally Pochaiah, S/o. Late Mankaiah, Muthwalliguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

3 Shettypally Ramulu, S/o. Late Mankaiah, Muthwalliguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

..... PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Joint Collector, R.R. District, at Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The R.D.O., Hyderabad East Division, Kattalmandi,

¶15

R.R.District, at Hyderabad.

¶16

3 The M.R.O.,Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶17

4 Gaddam Sathaiah, S/o. Late Ramulu,

¶18

Muthwalliguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶19

.....RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent Joint Collector, R.R. District at Hyderabad, in not disposing of the stay petition in Appeal No.D5/P5/6/05 pending before him as bad and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the Appeal and the

¶21

Stay Petition in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.VENKATA RAM REDDY PANDUGA Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶23

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.8117 OF 2005

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The fourth respondent herein preferred an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act), aggrieved by the order directing rectification of the revenue records in respect of the land in Sy.No.1 to an extent of Ac21-05 cts. of Mutwelliguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 12-01-2005 directing deletion of the names of the petitioners herein from the records observing that their names were recorded without any valid documents. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to rectify the entries. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein preferred a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act, seeking stay of the order dated 12-01-2005. The grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent failed to consider the said revision and no orders have been passed even on their application for stay so far, and in the meanwhile, the respondents are taking steps to implement the order dated 12-01-2005. Hence, this writ petition.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, and keeping in view that the statutory revision is pending, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the application for stay filed by the petitioners in their revision petition against the order of the second

¶28

respondent dated 12-01-2005, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the order of the second respondent dated 12-01-2005, shall not be given effect to.

¶29

Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

G.ROHINI, J

¶31

12^th April, 2005 SKM

¶32

¶33

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Ranga Reddy , 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, (OUT) 5 Two C.D. copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BJPR}

Shettypally Balaiah, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shettypally Balaiah, v. The Joint 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

Ekaldevi Narender Vs The Government of India

G. Krishnamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Abdul Altaf Aziz Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Ch.Venkat Rao, Vs The Divisional Forest officer

Krishnaveni All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers Vs The District Level Committee for Sand

Md. Moinuddin Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer