Disposed

Smt. Raja sulochana v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Telangana HC13 Dec 2013WP/2958/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition declared illegal and arbitrary inaction regarding allotment of surplus land. Court directed respondents to issue rejection endorsement or process application within specified timelines before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to communicate rejection endorsement within two weeks or process application for decision within one month.

Smt. Raja sulochana Vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its — Telangana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2958 of 2013

¶2

DATED: 13-12-2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt. Raja Sulochana and another .. Petitioners and The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (U.C.III) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. S. Rama Moorthy Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignment)

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in allotting surplus land in plot No.556-B comprised

¶9

in Sy.Nos.60 and 71 to 77 situated in Raghavendra Nagar, Kondapur Village, Seri Lingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, submitted that one Surendar Reddy, the petitioners’ vendor, submitted application for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.455 Revenue (UC-I) Department dated 29.07.2002 and that the said application was rejected through an endorsement. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, is unable to give the details such as the number and date of the purported endorsement.

¶11

Mr. S. Rama Moorthy Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that neither their vendor nor the petitioners have received any copy of such rejection endorsement and that if the said application is still pending, the respondents shall be directed to process the same and take a decision thereon.

¶12

Inasmuch as the details of the purposed endorsement have not been furnished by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I find justification in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

If an endorsement, as held out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has been made, respondent No.2 shall communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If no such endorsement has been made so far, respondent No.2 shall process the application further and place it before the appropriate committee for a decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶14

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3642 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

_____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶17

13^th December, 2013 IBL

Smt. Raja sulochana v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raja sulochana v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dodla Laxmamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Yelchala Yadi Reddy, S/o Durga Reddy, Aged 58 years, Vs The Government of A.P.

Chekuri Kishore Babu Vs The State, rep.by the District Collector, Khammam District

Mohammed Khaja, Vs a. P. State Wakf Board

E. Saritha Priya Vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Malpani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh