Allowed

B. Prabhakar Sharma, v. District Collector

Telangana HC12 Feb 2009WP/2560/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of a 'No Objection Certificate' by the District Collector for alienating inherited land. The High Court held that the Collector incorrectly relied on a missing 1952 patta instead of existing 1954-55 revenue records showing petitioners as pattadars. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the officer to decide based strict

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing the 'No Objection Certificate' dated 16.10.2008 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh based on revenue records and conclude within tw

B. Prabhakar Sharma, Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2560 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The grand father of petitioners 1 and 2 and the father of petitioner No.3, by name Joshi Venkatachalam, was assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No.89/2 of Balanagar Village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. After the death of Venkatachalam, his son late Venkateshwarlu and thereafter, the petitioners herein have inherited the land. With a view to alienate the land, the petitioners approached the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, the third respondent herein, with a request to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’. On receipt of the application of the petitioners, the first respondent called for the remarks of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar District and the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The reports were received and on a consideration of the same, the first respondent passed an order, dated 16.10.2008, refusing to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. From a perusal of the impugned order, dated 16.10.2008, it becomes clear that the first respondent has expressed his opinion as to what ought to have been the situation. The proceedings do not reflect the entries that are present in the revenue records. It is a matter of record that in the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, the name of the grand father of petitioners 1 and 2 and father of

¶6

petitioner No.3 was entered as pattadar. The inability of the petitioners to file patta certificate issued in the year 1952 appears to have weighed with the first respondent. It is almost impossible for anyone to preserve a document for half a century, cutting across three generations. The very purpose of maintaining the revenue records is to reflect the enjoyment and other rights of the citizens over the lands. In case the records maintained by the Revenue Department reflect the ownership of the petitioners and his predecessors, there is no reason why the ‘No Objection Certificate’ be withheld. On the other hand, if the entries are to the effect that the land belongs to the Government, the same can be stated. Any observation contrary to the entries in the revenue records is prone to be treated as an opinion, than a certificate.

¶7

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and examine the same strictly based on the entries that are already present in the revenue records and conclude the proceedings, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA

¶9

REDDY,J

¶10

Dt:12.02.2009 kdl

B. Prabhakar Sharma, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Prabhakar Sharma, v. District Collector

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

Fareed Hussain Khan, Vs The District Collector

Pongupati Venkata Saraswathi Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Jakata Danamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V. Rama Chandra Rao Vs The Joint Collector - II

G.Jaya Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Kotagiri Venugopal Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh