Disposed

Sri B.C. Janardharn Reddy, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC25 Jul 2012WP/27486/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addressed an eight-year delay by the District Revenue Officer in submitting revised land record proposals to the Commissioner, following a favorable order. The court directed the officer to eliminate previously noted deficiencies and submit corrected proposals within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to submit revised and correct proposals to the 5th respondent, addressing the 2004 deficiencies, within two months of the order.

Sri B.C. Janardharn Reddy, Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.27486 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner has been pursuing the proceedings under the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short ‘the Act’), for correction of the extent in survey No.69 of Miyapur Revenue Village, Seri Lingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to him, the correct extent is Acs.46.36 guntas, whereas it was mentioned as Acs.27.22 guntas. Initially, he approached the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the 3^rd respondent herein. The application was rejected through order, dated 08.09.1997. The same was affirmed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the 2^nd respondent herein, vide orders, dated 23.10.2000. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, the 5^th respondent herein, under Section 166(B)(3) of the Act. Through order, dated 13.06.2003, the 5^th respondent, has set aside the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 and remanded the matter for necessary correction of entries, as to the extents.

¶5

On such remand, the 3^rd respondent passed an order, dated 05.06.2004, directing that the extent in survey No.69 of Miyapur Village be mentioned as As.46.36 guntas, in stead of Acs.27.22 guntas. Accordingly, he submitted proposals to the 5^th respondent, for approval. However, the 5^th respondent returned the proposals vide endorsement, dated 16.08.2004, pointing out certain deficiencies. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent has not taken any steps so far and he is denied the benefit of the success in the proceedings initiated by him.

¶6

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

¶7

It was after more than a decade of pursuit that the petitioner got an order in his favour for correction of the extent. What remains to be done, is the implementation of orders pertaining to correction. As required under the relevant provisions of law, the 3^rd respondent submitted proposals to the 5^th respondent. The proposals, however, were found to be incomplete and as many as 7 deficiencies were pointed out vide proceedings, dated 16.08.2004. Eight years have elapsed and no steps were taken by the 3^rd respondent. There cannot be any justification for such a long delay.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent, who is conferred with the power to submit the revised and correct proposals to the 5^th respondent, duly taking into account, the deficiencies pointed out in the proceedings of the year 2004 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

¶10

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

Dated:25.07.2012

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

Writ Petition No.27486 of 2011

¶16

25.07.2012

¶17

Sri B.C. Janardharn Reddy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B.C. Janardharn Reddy, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Pedda Venkatesu Vs The District Collector

M. Anjaneyulu Vs Govt. of A.P.

S.S. N.Panthulu Vs The District Collector

Palyam.Murali Vs The Tahsildar

Jada Bharathamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mounika Sahu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh