Dismissed

Tallapalli Shankar Goud v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Jul 2011WP/18562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice requiring the petitioner to explain cancellation of a land mutation. The court found no jurisdictional infirmity in the notice at the admission stage and granted time for further representation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted time up to 31.07.2011 to file a detailed explanation to the Show Cause Notice, which the Revenue Divisional Officer must consider.

Tallapalli Shankar Goud Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18562 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is directed against the notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad of Adilabad District calling upon the petitioner along with one Sri Uduta Narsaiah, S/o Kanakaiah to explain as to why the mutation granted in their favour concerning land of Ac.2.50 cents situated in Sy.No.184/2 be not cancelled. It is stated that the land in question was assigned in favour of Sri Sirimilla Shankar Lingam, S/o Pullaiah, resident of Kothapally village, Tandur Mandal, as he was a freedom fighter. It is also stated that after the demise of the said Sri Shankar Lingam, the petitioner in the company of Sri Uduta Narsaiah, S/o Kanakaiah was said to be in possession of the said land. Hence the impugned show cause notice is issued.

¶4

2. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Tahsildar has issued a somewhat similarly worded notice to him and also to Uduta Narsaiah on 23.03.2011 and in response thereto, a detailed reply has been furnished to the Tahsildar on 29.03.2011 which was received by him on 30.03.2011 and without passing any orders thereon, the Tahsildar could not have made over the file to the RDO, for the RDO to issue the impugned show cause notice. It is further stated that the original assignee’s legal heir has alienated the land and with his consent, the necessary mutation in the revenue records has taken place.

¶5

3. I am afraid that, while examining the correctness or otherwise of a show cause notice, the area of scrutiny has got to be directed only to lack of jurisdiction. Merits of the matter cannot be examined. Even otherwise, the learned Government Pleader was quick to add that the original assignee left behind his widow and he died issueless and further the revenue establishment is only trying to protect the interest of the widow of freedom fighter, to whose benefit the land in question was assigned.

¶6

4. Be that as it may. I find no legal infirmity behind the RDO issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner and also to his companion Udata Narsaiah. It is for them to satisfy the RDO as to how they have validly acquired title to the land in question. So long as the fact that the land in question was originally assigned in favour of a freedom fighter is not challenged, it is for the petitioners to establish as to how they have validly succeeded to the said land. Therefore, I do not find any warrant for admission of this case. It is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.

¶7

5. Uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein above, the RDO would finalize the necessary action in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage makes a request to permit the petitioner to file a detailed representation on or before the end of July, 2011 before the RDO and the RDO may be directed to consider the same on merits.

¶8

6. Accordingly, the petitioner has been granted time till 31.07.2011 to file his detailed explanation to the impugned show cause notice of the RDO and the RDO is directed to take the same into account and consideration before passing final orders.

¶9

7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶10

____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J July 11, 2011 Note: Issue C.C in three (3) days B/o SP

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.18562 OF 2011

¶13

July 11, 2011

¶14

Tallapalli Shankar Goud v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tallapalli Shankar Goud v. The 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

Mogilicharla Yadagiri Vs The Tahsildar

P.Reddaiah Vs The Sub-Registrar

Avula Mallikarjuna Rao Vs v. Venkata Sudhakar

Chitemalla Ramakka Vs Chitemalla Lasmu Bai [died]

A.Mounika Vs The District Collector

M/s.Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crushers, Aliabad Vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District