Dismissed

N.Srinivas Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC24 Oct 2013WP/30496/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mutation of land based on a compromise award was dismissed after the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition and file an application in the prescribed proforma.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file application in form-VIA; interim relief petition dismissed as infructuous.

N.Srinivas Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30496 of 2013

¶3

Date:24.10.2013

¶4

Between: N.Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late N.Parvatha Reddy @ N.Parvathanna and two others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And: The Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and another.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶11

“…… to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not taking any action pursuant to representation made on 23.09.2013 seeking to mutate and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds by including the land to an extent of Acs.6..04 guntas in Survey No.736 and an extent of Acs.5.06 guntas in Survey No.733 of Jampally Vilalge, Dharoor Sivar, Dharoor Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, which fell to the share of the pettier in pursuance of the compromise award as made in PLC.No.394/2013 by the Chairman-cum-III Additional District Judge, Gadwal, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to forthwith mutate the name of the petitioner with

¶12

respect to the said property and to take further steps in pursuance thereof by disposing of the representation, dated 23.09.2013.”

¶13

At the hearing, Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to his clients to file application in proper proforma prescribed i.e., Form-VIA before respondent No.2 and avail further remedies, in the event the latter does not consider such application for a reasonable length of time.

¶14

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners in terms of the prayer made.

¶15

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.37857 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶16

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶17

24^th October, 2013 DR

N.Srinivas Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Srinivas Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

D.Lakshmi Kumari Vs D.Poorchandra Rao

M/s. Siddardha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri.v.Bhaskar

Mogalakurthi Appala Ramarao, Vs The Agent to the Government

Mohd. Mazheruddin s/o Mohd. Zahooruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Blessmen Welfare Out-Sourcing Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana Udyogula Sangahm Vs Vice Chairman and Managing Director