Disposed

N. Venkata Ramana Reddy. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Telangana HC13 Sept 2013WP/26616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to declare inaction on representations regarding land ownership. It directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Development to consider the representations and views of the Commissioner of Settlements and communicate a decision within two months. A connected M.P. was declared infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Development to obtain Commissioner's views and decide the petitioner's representations within two months.

N. Venkata Ramana Reddy. Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26616 of 2013 Date:13.09.2013

¶2

Between: N.Venkata Ramana Reddy,

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

And

¶5

The Govt of AP., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Development Hyderabad and six others.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶8

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering and disposing of the petitioner’s representations dated 15.09.2009 and 15.05.21012 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

The petitioner pleaded that Survey No.452/2 of Puppalaguda Village and Gram Panchayat, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, comprises Acs.193.39 guntas of land, of which, Acs.178.02 guntas is the Government land and Acs.15.37 guntas is the private patta land acquired by him from the original owner under GPA, dated 26.05.2007; that as there was a dispute relating to the location of the said land, the Surveyor of HMD and the Mandal Surveyor conducted joint inspection and submitted a fact finding report that the said land is situated in Survey No.452/2; that in the year 2012, the

¶11

Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records appointed a three-men Committee, which also submitted a report similar to the earlier report; that on 15.09.2009, the petitioner made a representation to correct the name in Khatedar Column No.4 in the 1959 Sethwar; and that the said representation was followed up by another representation, dated 15.05.2012. The petitioner further pleaded that there was internal correspondence among various functionaries and so far, the entry in the Sethwar has not been corrected. The petitioner filed letter No.D1/5682/2009, dated 03.11.2010, addressed by respondent No.2 to the Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. A perusal of this letter shows that respondent No.2 has, inter alia, referred to the nature of the ownership relating to Acs.15.37 guntas of land and observed that the revenue records from 1952-53 recorded the name of one Devarakonda Sayanna; that, however, in the Sethwar prepared in the year 1959-60, Survey No.452/2 was recorded as ‘Kancha Sarkari’; and that there is over writing with different ink in the Khatedar column. After discussing the facts, respondent No.2 in his letter has concluded as under:-

¶12

“In view of the above, it is submitted that in all revenue records prior to 1959, it is recorded as “Patta”. Whereas in Sethwar of the year 1959, it was recorded as Kancha Sarkari, but over writing in Khatadar Column and the Registrar Classar Akar revision Bandobasth surfekhan mubaraq of 1357 F (1947 A.D) name of Dhedan Deverakonda Sayanna, Yenkanna and others are recorded in Khatadar Column.”

¶13

When this Writ Petition came up for hearing on 12.09.2013, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) requested for a short adjournment for instructions.

¶14

Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that the issue referred to above by respondent No.2 in his letter, dated 03.11.2010, is pending with the Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records and that after obtaining his views, respondent No.2 will take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s representations within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶15

Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representations in the light of his letter, dated 03.11.2010 and the views that may be expressed by the Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

If respondent No.2 has any reasons to decline the petitioner’s request for correction of the entry in Sethwar in his favour, he shall give reasons in support thereof in the order that may be communicated to the petitioner.

¶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.32931 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶20

13^th September 2013 DR

N. Venkata Ramana Reddy. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Venkata Ramana Reddy. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

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

K.J.Natrajan Vs Sub Collector

Kanumuri Bharathi W/o Krishnam Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chittboina Hari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector

Gorla Sailaja, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

D. Srinivas, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Pulichinthala Bal Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy (Late), Vs The Dist Collector Nalgonda Dist. at Nalgonda