Disposed

Mohammadi Fatima, v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Telangana HC11 Sept 2013WP/26468/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the inaction of the respondent regarding their mutation application. The Court noted the lands were non-agricultural but directed the respondent to consider the application under the relevant Act and decide within one month. An infructuous MP was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.6 directed to consider the application under the Act and decide within one month.

Mohammadi Fatima, Vs The Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26468 of 2013

¶3

Date:11.09.2013

¶4

Between: Mohammadi Fatima, D/o Late Azmath Fatima and 19 others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad and six others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.A.K.Mynoddin

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.6 has not been considering the petitioners’ application, dated 30.03.2013, for mutation of their names in the record of rights in respect of different extents of land in various Survey numbers of Ward No.9, Block No.11 of Kancha Thattikhana, Shaikpet Taluk, Hyderabad West.

¶13

At the hearing, it has come out that the lands in respect of which mutation is sought for by the petitioners ceased to be agricultural lands long back.

¶14

Section 2(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), defines “land” as land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, including horticulture but

¶15

does not include land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes.

¶16

Inasmuch as the petitioners’ application is stated to be pending before respondent No.6, this Court does not propose to render conclusive findings on this aspect. Respondent No.6 is, therefore, directed to consider the petitioners’ application with reference to the provisions of the Act, take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.32745 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶20

11^th September 2013 DR

Mohammadi Fatima, v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammadi Fatima, v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

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

B .a .S . Granites Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Bajini Veeraiah Vs The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records

Cheera Shankaramma, Vs The District Collector

Smt.Hashmath Bee, Vs The Tahsiidar

Pangi Pandurangaswami Vs District Collector

A.P.NGOs Association, Vs he Govt. of A.P.