Disposed

T. Lakshminarayana, v. The District Collector, Nellore, Spsr Nellore district.

Telangana HC5 Sept 2013WP/26067/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the respondent authority was obligated to consider the petitioner's application for pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It directed the respondent to pass an appropriate decision recording reasons if rejected, completing the exercise within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to take an appropriate decision or record reasons for rejection and communicate within one month.

T. Lakshminarayana, Vs The District Collector… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26067 of 2013 Date:05.09.2013

¶2

Between:

¶3

T.Lakshminarayana, S/o Venkata Narasaiah

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District and two others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Narayana Reddy

¶9

Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that his representations made to the respondents for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds are not being considered and disposed of.

¶12

According to the petitioner, he is in occupation of Acs.2.10 cents of land in Survey No.40-3 of Chowtapalem Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District for more than 40 years and his name has been mutated in Adangal/Pahani for the years 2000, 2001, 2010 and 2011. The petitioner pleaded that he has been approaching the respondents for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. As no action was taken on his representations, he has made a representation to respondent No.1, who by his communication, vide Special Register No.390/2011 dated 14.09.2011, directed respondent No.3 to hold enquiry and submit action taken report within one week. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the

¶13

said direction, respondent No.3 has not considered his representation for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

¶14

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra area) submitted that even on the petitioner’s own showing, he is in occupation of the Government land and that therefore he is not entitled to grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

¶15

In my opinion, when an application for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds is made, respondent No.3 is obligated to consider the same, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the applicant. Despite the direction issued by respondent No.1 on 14.09.2011, respondent No.3 has apparently not taken any decision. Such indifference on the part of respondent No.3 cannot be appreciated. If respondent No.3 is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he has to pass an appropriate order giving reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s application to enable the petitioner to avail further remedies if he feels aggrieved thereby.

¶16

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to take an appropriate decision in pursuance of the direction given by respondent No.1 on 14.09.2011. In the event, respondent No.3 proposes to reject the petitioner’s request for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he shall record reasons therefor and communicate the same to the petitioner. Respondent No.3 shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

As a sequel to the disposal the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.32198 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶19

05^th September 2013 DR

T. Lakshminarayana, v. The District Collector, Nellore, Spsr Nellore district.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Lakshminarayana, v. The District Collector, Nellore, Spsr Nellore district.

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

Smt. Battula Usha Rani, Vs The District Collector

K.Shankaraiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Secretary

Smt. Ayesha Abid Ali, Vs The Tahasildar

M/s.Binjusaria Sponge and Power Private Ltd, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

K.Munaswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Sheshank, Vs Sri. Ram Vijaypal