Dismissed

Kama Shankar, v. State of Andhra pradesh

Telangana HC28 Jul 2011WP/21104/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a remand order directing the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding revenue record mutations. The court held that the respondent's contention regarding a prior order was without merit and that pendency of a civil suit does not warrant staying revenue proceedings without notice to the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself with no costs.

Kama Shankar, Vs State of Andhra pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21104 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Writ Petition is directed against the orders passed on 18.02.2010 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli directing the Tahsildar, Peddapalli to conduct a detailed enquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar before ordering for recording the mutation in favour of the petitioners herein was found to be improper.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that earlier, the same Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 20.11.2008 and therefore, the same Revenue Divisional Officer could not have passed a different order on 18.02.2010. It is also contended that a civil suit, O.S.No. 210 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Peddapalli is pending between the parties and the Tahsildar ought to have awaited the result of the said suit.

¶6

I am afraid, both these contentions do not hold any merit. On 20.11.2008, it is true, that the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order, entertaining a petition from the 1^st petitioner herein and three others, dated 12.11.2008. He called for a report in the matter from the Tahsildar, Peddapalli, who submitted a report on 17.11.2008 and therefore, he directed stay of the mutation effected by the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar in turn, to rectify the entries in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks accordingly.

¶7

It is imperative therefore, for the Tahsildar to have conducted an enquiry into the matter by putting all parties on notice, in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. When this procedure has not

¶8

been adopted by the Tahsildar, while issuing the orders on 29.11.2008, the 5^th respondent herein and three others lodged an appeal with the Revenue Divisional Officer on 07.12.2009. Entertaining the same, orders were passed on 18.02.2010. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 18.02.2010 is a mere remand order, directing the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry, after putting all parties concerned on notice. The case and cause of the petitioners has not suffered any prejudice in that process. They are entitled to have an opportunity of participating in the enquiry to be undertaken by the Tahsildar now. Therefore, I do not see any reason to entertain this Writ Petition nearly 1 ½ years later to the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶9

Insofar as the civil suit is concerned, it is for the petitioners herein to bring it to the notice of the Tahsildar as to how their rights have been worked out upon adjudication by the civil Court, so that the same will be taken into account and consideration, but the proceedings of the Tahsildar need not be withheld till such time the suit proceedings culminate in a final decision.

¶10

I do not see any warrant to admit this case and hence, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.

¶11

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

¶12

28^th July 2011 ksld

Kama Shankar, v. State of Andhra pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kama Shankar, v. State of Andhra pradesh

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

P.Srinivasa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Kamireddy Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

M/s.R.K.Infracorp Private Limited, rep.by its Authorised Vs The Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning

M/s. Galaxy Techno Projects Private Limited, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. bhavani Constructions, Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by tis Principal SEcretary

M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Ecc Division Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its PRincipal