Disposed

Zaheer Ahmed Khan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC25 Feb 2011WP/26937/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the Mutawalli of a notified wakf institution seeking directions to grant Occupancy Rights Certificates for attached lands was disposed of. The court directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the underlying application in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider and dispose of the application dated 26.02.2007 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

Zaheer Ahmed Khan Vs The Revenue… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 26937 of 2007

¶3

O r d e r:

¶4

The petitioner claims to Mutawalli of Dargah Hazrath Ameerul Momimeen Koh-e-Shareef, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, which is a notified wakf institution. He states that several lands are attached to the Dargah, as is evident from the pahani patrika, sethwar and pahanies. As the lands are attached to the wakf institution, having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the A.P. Inams Abolition (T.A) Act, he contends that the wakf institution is entitled for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates, in respect of the said lands. Therefore, as Mutawalli of the wakf institution, he submitted application dated 26.08.2007, requesting respondent No.1, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Keesara, to grant him Occupancy Rights Certificates, in respect of the said lands.

¶5

Respondent No.1, having received the said application, numbered the same as File No. J/3344/06, vide letter dated 28.02.2007, directed respondent No.2, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, to conduct spot enquiry and submit report. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2, till date respondent No.2, has not conducted any enquiry and submitted report and as respondent No.2 has not submitted any report, respondent No.1 is unable to take any action on his application. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶7

Though the petitioner contends that pursuant to his application dated 26.02.2007 for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates, in respect of the lands in question, respondent No.1, vide letter dated 28.02.2007, directed respondent No. 2 to conduct enquiry and submit report, and that in spite of such direction, respondent No.2 did not conduct enquiry and submit report, to enable respondent No.1 act on his application for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificates, the fact remains, it is the case of respondent No.2, as is evident from the counter filed by him, earlier the petitioner’s father Sri. Gulam Ali Khan, in the year 1968 filed application before the then Tahsildar, Medchal, seeking grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate, in respect of the land in question, but the

¶8

same was rejected vide order dated 03.10.1968 on the ground that the lands do not stand in his name. However, the petitioner contends that he is not aware of his father making any such representation. At any rate, the counter filed by respondent No.2 does not state whether any orders are passed on the application of the petitioners. That being so, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶9

The respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the application dated 26.02.2007, if not, already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶10

_________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶11

Dated: 25^th February, 2011 KSR

Zaheer Ahmed Khan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaheer Ahmed Khan 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

Sri a, Bharath Kumar Vs Sri Ch. Babu Rajendra Prasad

Kovvuru Boatsmen Coop Society Vs The Government of Andrha Pradesh

The Atchampet Mandal All Castes Sand and Boat Workers Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Balagalla Karre Sayanna ( died ) Vs The Joint Collector

Sri a. Satyanarayana, Vs Sri P. Narasimha Yadava

Sri a. Satyanarayana, Vs Sri P. Narasimha Yadava