Allowed

Uskabavi Chandra Reddy v. Chandi Muthyalu

Telangana HC10 Jul 2013WA/1005/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order striking down revenue proceedings under the A.P. Rights in Land Act, and remitted the matter for fresh hearing after giving notice to a non-implied party.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the order of the learned Single Judge set aside; matter remitted to the Single Judge for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to the appellant to file a counter.

Uskabavi Chandra Reddy Vs Chandi Muthyalu — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶3

W.A.No.1005 of 2013

¶4

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)

¶5

Writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.5866 of 2013, wherein the learned single Judge has set aside the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak.

¶6

Respondent No.4 in the writ petition is the appellant herein.

¶7

Writ petition No.5866 of 2013 has been filed by the writ petitioners seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in entertaining the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 under Section 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – respondent No.4 submits that even though the appellant was shown as a party in the writ petition, the learned single Judge has passed the impugned order at the stage of admission without even issuing notice to him.

¶9

Admittedly, the main question falls for consideration is whether the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 under Section 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books

¶10

Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak District, is maintainable or not and the same has to be decided in the writ petition.

¶11

Accordingly, we allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.5866 of 2013 and remit the matter to the learned single Judge to hear the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant – respondent No.4 for filing counter by him. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in the writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶13

_________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶14

10^th July, 2013 Ksp

Uskabavi Chandra Reddy v. Chandi Muthyalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uskabavi Chandra Reddy v. Chandi Muthyalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Ap Scheduled Caste Co-op Finance Corporation Ltd, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Boggarapu Subramanyam, Vs The State rep by the Prl.Secretary

Mis Golla Chenchaiah Formerly Ibp Now Iocl Retail Vs The Government of A.P.

K. Sravanthi Vs The Reserve Bank Of India rep by its Governor

The Depot Manager,Apsrtc Ibrahimpatnam Bus Depot Vs a.Arjun