Disposed

V. Indrasena Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Jul 2009WP/12948/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Revenue authority cannot justify inaction in granting land mutation solely due to pending appellate proceedings. It directed the respondent to consider the application, pass an order, and communicate it within 30 days without fail, emphasizing that silence and inaction are not options under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's application, demur or pass an order, and communicate the same by registered post acknowledgement due within 30 days.

V. Indrasena Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12948 of 2009

¶4

Between:

¶5

V. Indrasena Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Raghava Reddy, R/o. Hasanparthy Village & Mandal, Warangal District.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Tahsildar, Hasanparthy Mandal, at Hasanparthy, Warangal District.

¶9

.....RESPONDENT

¶10

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein in not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and not issuing the pattedar books by conducting an enquiry U/s 4 & 5 of A.P. Righs in Land & Pattedar Books Act, 1971 and Rules thereunder as illegal, arbitrary and void abinitio and violative of the due procedure contemplated under Sec.4 & 5 of AP Rights in Land & Pattedar Books Act, 1971 and consequently direct the respondent to conduct an enquiry and issue pattedar passbooks and title deeds by amending the revenue records in respect of agricultural land in Sy.No. 739 an extent of Ac. 2.09 guntas, Sy.No. 722 an extent of Ac. 2. 1 1/2 guntas, Sy.No. 214 an extent of Ac. 1.15 guntas, Sy.No. 376 an extent of Ac. 2.28 guntas, Sy.No. 330 an extent of Ac. 2.20 guntas of Mucherla Shivar, Hasanparthy Village & Mandal, Warangal District to the petitioner and pass

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.CHALAPATHI RAO

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶15

W.P.No. 12948 of 2009

¶16

15-07-2009

¶17

Oral Order:

¶18

The singular grievance in this writ petition is that despite the petitioner’s application dated 22-05-2005 addressed to the respondent for mutation of his name in respect of the lands in an extent of

¶19

Ac.02-09 guntas in survey No. 739; Ac.02-1½ guntas in survey No. 722; Ac.01-15 gts., in survey No. 214; Ac.02-28 gts., in survey No. 376 and Ac.0-20 guntas in survey No. 330 of Pembarthy Shivar, Hasanparthy village and Mandal, Warangal District, the respondent has not performed the statutory obligation under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶20

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions from the respondent states that as “some” appellate proceedings are pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer in respect of the land in survey No. 739, the respondent has not acted. This Court perceives no justification for the respondent a statutory authority under the provisions of the Act to perform the statutory obligations only by verbal communications through the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The respondent if he wants to avoid an allegation of negligent conduct and

¶21

abdication of statutory responsibility, is required to consider an application made by a citizen requisitioning the exercise of statutory powers and deliver upon the statutory obligation by passing an order according to his best judgment and the discretion of the law. Silence is not an option nor is inaction.

¶22

In the circumstances, the respondent shall consider the petitioner’s application dated 22-04-2005 and shall without fail, demur or further procrastination pass an order and communicate the same to the petitioner by the registered post acknowledgement due, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this the respondent shall fail not. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.

¶23

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 15-07-2009 Pvks

V. Indrasena Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Indrasena Reddy, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt. Samburu Aruna Vs The tahsildar

B. Phanidra Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Akber Hussain Vs Haleema Begum , Ameena Begum

Smt. Rukhmini Bai Vs The District Collector

Gundloooru Shankaraiah Vs The District Collector, Kadapa District.

Sri Yennisetti Sahadev Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary