Dismissed

N Obulamma, v. The Tahsildar

Telangana HC31 Aug 2012WA/1059/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice single-handedly dismissed this writ appeal against a single judge's order. The lower court had dismissed a writ petition directing Tahsildar to issue Pattadar Pass Books, suggesting a civil suit for title determination. The High Court upheld this, ruling that since the petitioner's title flows from a disputed will, the matter requires probate and adjudication by Civil Cour

What did the court decide?

WRIT APPEAL DISMISSED; STATUS QUO OF LOWER COURT ORDER MAINTAINED.

N Obulamma, Vs The Tahsildar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.1059 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 31-08-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

N.OBULAMMA AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE TAHSILDAR VAJRAKARURU MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.1059 OF 2012

¶10

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶11

This writ appeal is directed against an order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge on 14-06-2012 passed in W.P.No.17527 of 2012, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in his Rc.No.A/66/2010, dated 15.4.2010 in not entertaining the application under Form VI A of the petitioners herein for issuance of Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in respect of Ac.4-07 ½ cents each in Sy.No.187A/2 of Chinna Hothuru village of Vajrakaruru Mandal in Anantapur District and directing the petitioners to approach civil court as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against the provisions particularly Section 5 of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in his Rc.No.A/66/2010, dated 15.4.2010 with further direction to entertain the application of the petitioners for issuance of PPB and title deeds as per the provisions of the Act.

¶12

The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition directing that the petitioners’ right can be decided in a suit before the Civil Court and relegated the rights of the petitioner for adjudication by a Civil Court.

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

We do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by his Lordship. In our opinion, the right, title and interest in the property in favour of the petitioner flows from the last WILL and testament of

¶15

his mother. Therefore, first he has to have probate or otherwise before the Civil Court in respect of the said WILL. Further more, it appears that one of his brothers has disputed the WILL in question. Since the said WILL itself is disputed, the facts relied in the writ petition cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed on the above grounds.

¶17

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶18

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶19

J )

¶20

Dt: 31-08-2012.

¶21

TNB

N Obulamma, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Obulamma, v. The Tahsildar

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

C. Venkat Reddy Vs M. Srinivas

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, Vs P.D.K.Wad

D. Ravikumar Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited

Killadi Vera Naga Prasad Rao Vs The Tadepalligudem Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner

Kondepudi Venkata Subba Rao, Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal