Disposed

Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam, v. The State of a.P., Rep by its Prl.Secretary Revenue Dept.

Telangana HC16 Apr 2008WP/8147/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Writ of Mandamus for implementation of a 1975 order regarding land subdivision and demarcation and disposal of a 2005 representation. Court directed respondents to consider the pending representation and pass expedient orders without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 9.2.2005 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam, Vs The State of a.P., Rep by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8147 of 2008

¶5

Between: Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam, S/o.Bapaiah Panthulu, R/o. Bapatla Town, Guntur District.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad-22.

¶9

2 The District Collector, Nellore District, Nellore.

¶10

3 The District Revenue Officer, Nellore District, Nellore.

¶11

4 The District Survey Officer, Nellore District, Nellore.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 Respondents No.3 and 4 in not implementing the Order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.3403/1974, Dt.09-12-1975 and also not considering the Representation of the Petitioner, Dt.9.02.2005 submitted to the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, against the Principles of Natural Justice, against the Rules of Revenue Laws and Unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to implement the Order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.3403/1974, Dt.09.12.2005 submitted to the 2nd Respondent.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that his grand father and father filed Writ Petition No.3402 of 1974 before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to effect sub division of patta No.360 and to demarcate an extent of Ac.30.48 cents of land in S.No.360 of Padugupadu Village, Kovur Taluk Nellore District which was allowed vide orders of this court dated 9.12.1975 directing the respondents to dispose of their application for sub-division and demarcation of the land in question for which ryotwari patta has been granted. It is also his case that on 9.2.2005 he made a representation to the 2^nd respondent requesting him to handover the land in question as per the orders of this Court by evicting the unauthorized occupants from the said land and to give compensation to the land which was used for the purpose of tribals houses, in vein. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking implementation of the orders of this Court dated 9.12.1975.

¶20

Since the representation of the petitioner dated 9.2.2005 seeking implementation of the orders of this Court is pending with the 2^nd respondent, both the counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation.

¶21

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ

¶22

petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9.2.2005 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

¶23

N.V.RAMANA,J

¶24

Dated 16.4.2008 msv

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad-22.

¶30

2 The District Collector, Nellore District, Nellore.

¶31

3 The District Revenue Officer, Nellore District, Nellore.

¶32

4 The District Survey Officer, Nellore District, Nellore.

¶33

5. 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (OUT)

¶34

6. 2CD copies

Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam, v. The State of a.P., Rep by its Prl.Secretary Revenue Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam, v. The State of a.P., Rep by its Prl.Secretary Revenue Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chilukuri Satyanarayana S/o Bhoomaiah Vs The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar

Cmc Limited, a public limited company incorporated under Vs The Tahsildar (Deputy Collector cadre)

M.A. Hameed Khan Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Pentakoti Seetharamaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District

Akella Sri Yejan Narayana Murty S/o Rama Sastry Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its

Sutapalli Panduranga Rao Vs The Tahsildar