Disposed

K.Venkateswara Rao, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC20 Jun 2011WP/16827/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found no need to keep the writ petition pending. Instead, it directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the pending revenue appeal expeditiously within four months, while restraining the Tahasildar from assigning lands until the appeal is decided.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal within four months; restrained Tahasildar from assigning lands pending decision.

K.Venkateswara Rao, Vs The District Collector — Telangana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 16827 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

It is represented by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that an appeal was preferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry on 28.03.2011 against the order passed by the Tahasildar, Kapileswarapuram on 05.08.2010. Since the appeal has not been disposed of by the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is no doubt true that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry had to perform several functions, as the said revenue division being a very important revenue division in the State, but nevertheless, sometime has got to be spared for dealing with the appeals preferred before him against the orders passed by various Tahasildars, inasmuch as the rights of the citizens are dependant upon such adjudicatory process.

¶5

I, therefore, consider it unnecessary to keep this Writ Petition pending and issue notice to the respondents to ascertain the reasons why the appeal said to have been preferred by the writ petitioners has not been dealt with or decided so far. Instead, I consider it appropriate to direct Respondent No.2 to deal with the appeal said to have been preferred by the writ petitioners herein against the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Kapileswarapuram on 05.08.2010, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶6

It is needless for me to observe that the Revenue Divisional Officer would put all parties concerned on prior notice of hearing and provide them an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriately reasoned order for his conclusions.

¶7

The Tahasildar, Kapileswarapuram may not assign the lands in

¶8

favour of any 3^rd parties till the appeal is decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶9

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶10

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶11

20^th June 2011

¶12

ksld

K.Venkateswara Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkateswara Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Narayana Vs The Joint Collector, Chittoor District

P.Gopal Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh. rep by its

Ch. Seetharama Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.C. Rajeswari Vs The Sub-Registrar

Kantimutchu Nooka Raju Vs The District Collector

Sri. Darga Swamy Vs The government of A.P.