Partly allowed

T. Jaffar Vali v. The State of A.P. Rep by its District Collector

Telangana HC28 Dec 2010WP/32982/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Collector to decide on the petitioner's application for patta within one month after a revenue inspector recommended issuance. The court dismissed the prayer to restrain a third party from interfering with possession.

What did the court decide?

Directive to Respondent No.2 to decide on the application for grant of patta within one month.

T. Jaffar Vali Vs The State of A.P. Rep by its… — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32982 of 2010

Date: 28.12.2010

Between:

T. Jaffer Vali

..... Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Anantapur and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I. Venkata Prasad

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj

¶12

Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5: --

¶13

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land admeasuring 18 x 20 feet in survey No.217-3 of Penukonda Village and Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant patta in respect of the abovesaid land in his favour.

¶15

I have heard Sri I. Venkata Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶16

The pleadings of the petitioner and the material filed in support

¶17

thereof show that in pursuance of the resolution passed by respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat dated 19.03.1998, lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above noted property for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has started a Tea stall by spending substantial amount on construction and that on his application for grant of patta in respect of the abovesaid land, respondent No.2 has called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penukonda, who is stated to have submitted a report recommending issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that without taking a decision on the said recommendation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 allowed respondent No.5 to occupy the premises in question by permitting it to start packaged drinking water plant.

¶18

In the light of the above facts, the first part of the prayer, namely, restraining respondent No.5 from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property cannot be granted as respondent No.5 is evidently inducted into the property by respondent No.3. As regards the grievance of the petitioner relating to non-disposal of his application by respondent No.2, I find some justification. From the copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penukonda, filed by the petitioner, it is seen that he has made a recommendation for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, under obligation to consider the petitioner’s application in the light of the said report and take a decision in accordance with law.

¶19

Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to decide on the petitioner’s application for grant of patta, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶20

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41880 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶23

28^th December, 2010

¶24

GHN

T. Jaffar Vali v. The State of A.P. Rep by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Jaffar Vali v. The State of A.P. Rep by its District 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

M/s. Golla Chenchaiah Ipb Retail Kerosene Dealer, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep bythe Secretary to

M/s. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing PArtner Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Habeeb Ali Vs The Gram Panchayat

Smt. Padma Gaglani Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

C. Subba Rayudu, Vs The Regional Manager

Y. Amaravathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh