Allowed

Smt. B.Yashodamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC7 Jun 2011WP/14866/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner complained that the Deputy Inspector of Survey failed to complete a land resurvey within six months despite a directive from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Court directed the second respondent to conduct the resurvey within two months and submit the report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Inspector of Survey to conduct the resurvey within two months and submit the report.

Smt. B.Yashodamma Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14866 of 2011

Date:07.06.2011

Between:

Smt.B.Yashodamma

..... Petitioner

AND

Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapallie and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Suresh Kumar Kalava

¶11

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

When the writ petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an endorsement dated 08.12.2010 directing the Deputy Inspector of Survey of his office to inspect the lands in question duly issuing notices to all the parties concerned whoever have a claim or interest in the land and to cause resurvey of the land as per the title and enjoyment on ground and to submit a report to him. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in spite of elapsing six months time, necessary follow up action has not been taken by the second respondent – Deputy Inspector of Survey, Revenue Divisional Officer’s office, Madanapalle.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion on the tenability or the lack of it

¶15

in the claims made by the petitioner, the second respondent – Deputy Inspector of Survey, Revenue Divisional Officer’s office, is directed to accomplish the resurvey as per the orders of the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle contained in its endorsement dated 08.12.210 and submit the necessary report within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to observe that the second respondent would provide an intimation of the date of resurvey which he will be conducting duly serving the same on all the persons concerned.

¶16

The Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission stage as consented to by the learned Government Pleader. No costs.

¶17

____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 07^th June, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN

Smt. B.Yashodamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B.Yashodamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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. C. Prameela Vs The District Collector, Ananthapur

Kurapati Upender Vs Sri a. Sadanandam, Registrar

Smt. D. Manjula Vs The District Collector, Ananthapur

M. Sharmila Reddy Vs The District Collector

Medikonda Nageswara Rao Vs The sub Registrar, Singarayakonda

M.Sharmila Reddy Vs The District Collector