Disposed

Sikilammetla Sathyanarayana , Sathaiah v. The Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Telangana HC3 Sept 2013WP/10000/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court directed the Tahsildar to complete an enquiry under Section 40 of the A.P. Tenancy Act and pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate order within three months.

What the court decided

Sikilammetla Sathyanarayana , Sathaiah Vs The Tahsildar… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.10000 of 2013

¶2

Dated 0 3 rd September, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sikilammetla Sathyanarayana and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Nalgonda District and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Satyam Reddy

¶10

for Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 & 6: Sri J.Ashvini Kumar

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in disposing of the petitioners’ application filed under Section 40 of the A.P.(Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the said application.

¶15

On 04.04.2013, this Court has permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out notices to respondent Nos.3 to 6. Accordingly, notices were taken out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the said respondents. Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel, has entered appearance for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. He has admitted that in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 40 of the Act and that the same is pending before respondent No.1.

¶16

Inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioners is confined only to non-disposal of the application filed by them by respondent No.1, it is unnecessary for this Court to await service of notice on respondent No.4.

¶17

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pleas of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate order on the petitioners’ application stated to have been made on 28.01.2008, after notice to them and respondent Nos.3 to 6, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.12447 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

03^rd September, 2013 VGB

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Sikilammetla Sathyanarayana , Sathaiah v. The Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sikilammetla Sathyanarayana , Sathaiah v. The Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

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

Nalla Raghunadha Ramachandrarao , Ramachandrarao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Danaiah, S/o. Goundla Chittari , P.Chittari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Nimmagadda Surya Teja, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Mulka Laxmibai Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Soka Padmamma W/o Penchalaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

Y.S.L. Prasad Vs District Collector