Disposed

Raj Kishan Pershad, v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Telangana HC18 Apr 2008WP/8539/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to consider and dispose of petitioner appeals regarding land mutation expeditiously, admitting the writ petition at the admissibility stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider and dispose of the appeals/representations filed by the petitioners for mutation of names expeditiously.

Raj Kishan Pershad, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8539 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Raj Kishan Pershad, S/o. Late Sri Raja Hari Kishan Pershad, Rep by their GPA Holder Mr. Mantrigari Narayan Goud, S/o. Lingamaiah Goud aged about 55 years,

¶7

R/o.H.No. 23-1-161, Hari Bowli, Shahalibandal, Hyderabad.

¶8

2 Prem Kishan Pershad, S/o. Late Sri Raja Hari Kishan Pershad, Rep by their GPA Holder Mr. Mantrigari Narayan Goud, S/o. Lingamaiah Goud aged about 55 years,

¶9

R/o.H.No. 23-1-161, Hari Bowli, Shahalibandal, Hyderabad.

¶10

.... PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Serilingampally MaNDAL, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

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 to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not disposing off the appeal filed by the petitioners dated 15th December, 2007 & on 30th January, 2008 to the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India consequentially direct the respondents to forthwith dispose off the Appeals dated 15th December, 2007 & 30th January, 2008 to the 1st respondent and pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SUDHAKAR BABU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO : 8539 of 2008

¶20

ORAL ORDER:

¶21

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the first respondent in not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 15.12.2007 and 30.1.2008 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶22

The petitioners claim that they are the owners of land admeasuring Ac.12.20 guntas in survey No. 174, Ac.22.30 guntas in survey No. 236, Ac.18.15 guntas in survey No. 252, Ac.35.00 guntas in survey No. 366, Ac.1.26 guntas in survey no. 205 and Ac.00.18 guntas in survey no. 239, Chandanagar village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district, having succeeded to the property through will executed by late Raja Sri Kishan Prasad and Kum. Har Kaur Bibi. They state that they made two appeals/representations dated 15.12.2007 and 30.1.2008 to the first respondent to mutate their names in the revenue records and to issue patta pass books in their favour, but not action thereon had been taken. Hence, they filed the present writ petition.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and since the appeals/representations dated 15.12.2007 and 30.01.2008, said to have been filed by the petitioners is said to be pending before the first respondent, both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage, with the following direction.

¶24

The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeals/representations dated 15.12.2007 and 30.1.2008 filed by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶25

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

¶26

_____________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶27

DATE: 18.4.2008 TVK

¶28

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO : 8539 of 2008

¶30

DATE: 18.4.2008

Raj Kishan Pershad, v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishan Pershad, v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

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

Muzafar Azamul Quadri, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Donga Naga Satyanarayana, Satyanarayana Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

The Madhavaram Gram panchayat, rep.by its Sarpanch Vs The District Collector, Collectorate office, Kurnool

B.Purnachandra Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Makkena Vijaya Rao Vs The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

S. Pentaiah, Vs The State of A.P. rep by its Collector