Allowed

Smt. N.Kamalamma v. The District Collector

Telangana HC20 Sept 2012WP/8455/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice set aside an order dismissing a revision petition under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, passed without notice. The matter was remitted to the Joint Collector for afresh consideration after giving proper notice and hearing, with status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dt.28.2.2003 passed by the Joint Collector is set aside and remitted to him to decide afresh within six weeks after giving notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner

Smt. N.Kamalamma Vs The District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.8455 OF 2003

¶3

DATED:20.9.2012

¶4

Between: Smt. N. Kamalamma and others … Petitioners

¶5

And

¶6

The Joint Collector, R.R. District Office at Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.8455 OF 2003

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with Procs.No.D5/2652/01, dt.28.2.2003 passed by respondent No.1 and quash the same, and for consequential directions.

¶11

The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land in question and they have registered sale deeds in their favour. It is their case that respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the connivance of the revenue officials manipulated the entries, tampered records and got their names included in the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioners is that without giving any notice to the petitioners, respondent No.1 – Joint Collector vide his order dt.28.2.2003 dismissed the revision petition filed by them under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶13

The petitioners claim ownership to the property in question, which is disputed by the unofficial respondents. The petitioners allege that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.1 without giving notice to them.

¶14

In view of that, the impugned order dt.28.2.2003 passed by respondent No.1 – Joint Collector is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 with a direction to him to decide the matter afresh, within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, after

¶15

giving notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, without being influenced by the order dt.28.2.2003 passed in the revision. Meanwhile status quo as on today shall be maintained.

¶16

Since it is reported that first petitioner expired, the remaining petitioners may proceed with the matter.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶18

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶19

20.9.2012

¶20

bnr

Smt. N.Kamalamma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N.Kamalamma 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

Sri Naveen Kumar, Vs Sri a.Rajesh

A.K.Mishra, Vs The Sainik School, Korukonda

Laxmaiah, Vs The Dist. Revenue Officer

P. Mangamma and 14 Ors. Vs Dist.Collector Rr Dist. Hyd and 3 Ors.

P. Krishna Murthy ( Died) as per L.R. Dt. 1.8.2004. Vs Panuganti Laxmamma

M\S.Crown Stone Crusher Indust Hyd Vs the Govt of A.P. Its Sec INDANDCOMMAND3