Dismissed

Chakilam Lalitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Oct 2013WP/25127/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court consolidated two writ petition filed challenging revenue records and a panchanama. It observed that a revision petition was pending before the Joint Collector. It directed the Joint Collector to decide the revision within two months and restrained the lower appellate authority from proceeding, maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained in revenue records; Joint Collector directed to dispose of revision within two months; lower appeal stayed.

Chakilam Lalitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.10670 and 25127 of 2013 Date:30.10.2013 WRIT PETITION No.10670 of 2013

¶3

Between: Linga Venkanna, S/o Gopaiah

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And The State of A.P., Reptd by its District Collector, Karimnagar District and three others.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Naga Praveenk Vankayalapati

¶8

AND WRIT PETITION No.25127 of 2013

¶9

Between: Chakilam Lalitha, W/o Hariprasad and two others.

¶10

..... Petitioners

¶11

And The State of A.P., Reptd by its District Collector, Karimnagar District and two others.

¶12

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Naga Praveenk Vankayalapati The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶13

Since the subject matter is common in both the Writ Petitions, they are heard and being disposed of together.

¶14

Writ Petition No.10670 of 2013 is filed for a Mandamus to set aside panchanama, dated 02.06.2012, conducted by respondent No.2. The three daughters of respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.10670 of 2013 are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.25127 of 2013, in which the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013 is respondent No.3. In W.P.No.25127 of 2013 the petitioners questioned the order, dated 06.08.2013, passed in appeal No.A/1166/2012 of respondent No.2 therein, wherein he had directed all the parties to appear and make their submissions on the validity or otherwise of panchanama, dated 02.06.2012.

¶15

At the hearing, it has come out that against the action of the Tahsildar, Narahari Rao Mandal, Karimnagar District, issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013, the petitioners in W.P.No.25127 of 2013 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani and that the said appeal having been dismissed, they filed a Revision before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar District and the said Revision is pending. It has also come out that the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013 has filed O.S.No.14 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani and I.A.No.199 of 2012 filed by him for temporary injunction was dismissed by order, dated 21.06.2012, wherein the panchanama, dated 02.06.2012, impugned in W.P.No.10670 of 2013 was discussed and findings rendered.

¶16

Inasmuch as the whole dispute revolves around the

¶17

question of entries in the record of rights and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds with respect to which Revision Petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.25127 of 2013 is pending before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25127 of 2013 and Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013, have fairly agreed that their clients will pursue the pending Revision and get the disputes adjudicated before the Joint Collector in the said Revision.

¶18

In view of the pendency of the said Revision Petition, the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013 is permitted to advance his submissions as regards the validity or otherwise of the panchanama, dated 02.06.2012, before the revisional authority. If such issue is raised, the revisional authority shall discuss and decide on the same instead of permitting the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Revenue Division, to decide the said issue in the appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani is restrained from proceeding further with the appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013.

¶19

Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10670 of 2013, submitted that as on today the revenue records stand in the name of his client and that based on the purported panchanama, dated 02.06.2012, there is an attempt on the part of the revenue officials to mutate the names of the petitioners in W.P.No.25127 of 2013 in the revenue records. Since the Revision Petition is pending before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, it is desirable that status quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to the entries in the

¶20

revenue records pending disposal of the Revision Petition. The Joint Collector, Karimnagar is directed to dispose of the Revision Petition, after hearing both parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶22

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP.Nos.13227 and 31000 of 2013 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶23

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶24

30^th October, 2013 DR

Chakilam Lalitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakilam Lalitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Madan Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

B. lylamma Vs The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Sri Usala Chenchurama Naidu,Poosala Chenchu Vs The Office of the District Collector

Mustafa Ali Vs The State of a. P

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nadella Jayamma Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its the Chief