Dismissed

A.Gopal, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012WP/22978/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the deletion of the petitioner's name from revenue records. Noting the pendency of a partition suit and a procedural defect regarding lack of notice, the Court held that entries must await the partition suit's outcome. The revision was dismissed with no interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; parties to abide by the outcome of the pending suit for partition.

A.Gopal, Vs The Joint Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.22978 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records in respect of lands in Sy.No.575/14/2 of Deverkadra Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. However, the 2^nd respondent herein submitted a complaint, stating that no notice was issued to him, before the entries were made. Reference was also made to the pendency of the suit for partition and other proceedings. Taking the same into account, the Tahsildar, Deverkadra passed an order dated 04-112008, deleting the name of the petitioner and restoring the original state of affairs. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (for short ‘the Act’) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, and the same was dismissed on 12-12-2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, the 1^st respondent. The revision was rejected on 1405-2012. Hence, this writ petition.

¶5

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

¶6

The petitioner does not dispute that no notice was issued, either to the 2^nd respondent, or to any other person, before his name was entered in the revenue records, in respect of the land, referred to above. On noticing this serious infirmity, the Tahsildar, Deverkadra Mandal, has restored the original state of affairs. It is also not in dispute that the suit for partition is pending between the petitioner and

¶7

respondents 2 and 3. It is only after the respective shares are allotted to the parties to the suit, that entries in accordance with such allotment can be made in the revenue records. The 1^st respondent has appreciated the matter from the correct perspective, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶8

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, by observing that the parties shall abide by the outcome of the pending suit; and entries in the revenue records shall be made in accordance with the same.

¶9

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of.

¶10

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dt.27-07-2012

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

Writ Petition No.22245 of 2012

¶16

Date:23.07.2012

¶17

A.Gopal, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Gopal, v. The Joint Collector

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

The Depot Manager, Vs Labour Court

Sri. Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Temple Association, Reg.No5/19 Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

K. Nawaz Vs The Apsrtc

Yandra Venkata Lakshmi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kalle Siddappa Vs Tahsildar

Adapa Shivaji Naidu Vs The Thasildar Lingasamudram Mandal