Disposed

Prattipati Jogi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Dec 2011WP/15118/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition seeking mandamus to direct the grant of pattas under the Mundadugu scheme, the Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioners' representation, verify their socio-economic status, and pass appropriate orders within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to consider the petitioners' land assignment representation within six months after ascertaining social and economic status.

Prattipati Jogi Vs The Government of Andhra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 15118 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing pattas to the petitioners herein for the lands assigned to them in RS Nos. 1176/1, 1176/2, 1177/1, 1177/2 and 1177/3 of Telaprolu village of Ungutur Mandal of Krishna District under self employment scheme, called `Mundadugu’, as bad and consequently to direct the respondents to grant pattas to the petitioners over an extent of Ac.0.10 cts in favour of each of them.

¶5

The Tahsildar, Ungutur Mandal, Ungutur, Krishna District, has filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out that the lands in R.S.No. 1176/1, 1176/2, 1177/1, 1177/2 and 1177/3 measuring Ac. 9.88 cts, Ac. 0.24 cts, Ac.6.58 cts, Ac. 0.49 cts and Ac. 0.55 cts situate in Telaprolu village of Ungutur Mandal are classified as Gayalu’ and the land in R.S. No. 1177/3 measuring an extent of Ac. 0.55 cts of land is classified as Donka’ as per the village accounts. The Tahsildar has denied and disputed the claim of the petitioners that they were already granted assignment over the said land. It is specifically pointed out that the revenue records do not show any such allotment to have taken place. It is also asserted that no layout of the said land has been prepared, as alleged, for the purpose of constructing a community hall or seed mixing plant or protected drinking water tank under any of the government schemes. It is

¶6

also denied that the Tahsildar has sent any proposals to the government for assignment of any such lands in favour of any third party. However, it is admitted that the petitioners have submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent – Collector seeking assignment of land and that the said representation is pending consideration of the Collector.

¶7

It is therefore appropriate to direct the District Collector to take up the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioners for consideration and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months, after ascertaining the social status claim of the petitioners as well as their economic status and in the event it is found that the land is suitable for being assigned to any of the petitioners or any other eligible persons of the village liable to be granted a patta, the same exercise may be completed.

¶8

With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶9

costs.

¶10

Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J

¶11

knk 15^th December 2011

Prattipati Jogi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prattipati Jogi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chekuri Krishna Mohan Rao Vs The District Collector

Rambabu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abburi Srinivas Vs The District Collector

E.Subba Reddy Vs The District Collector

Smt.B.Bala Tripura Sundaramma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Public Information officer

Kanregula Lakshmi Talli Vs The District Collector