Allowed

The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Adilabad v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Nov 2013WP/31508/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Recording authority to consider the petitioner's objections to the mutation of names of Respondents 5 and 6 in the Record of Rights, given the pending civil proceeding affecting the property.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to have their objections considered by Respondent No.4 before approving mutation applications by Respondents 5 and 6.

The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31508 of 2013

¶2

Date: 04.11.2013

¶3

Between: The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Adilabad Rep. by its Business Manager N.Mohan Rao. .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Adilabad, and 5 others. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5, in alienating the land admeasuring Ac.0.05 gts in Sy.No.153 of Rendlaguda Village, Jannaram Mandal, Adilabad District in favour of respondent No.6 through a registered sale deed, dated 07.06.2013, pending an un-numbered CMA of the year 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a declaration that the action of respondent No.4, in seeking to mutate the name of respondent No.6 in the Revenue Records, as arbitrary and unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider its representation and thereby not to mutate the name of respondent No.6 in the Record of Rights.

¶6

At the hearing, Mr. K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while his client is not pressing the main part of the relief in the writ petition, it will be satisfied if respondent No.4 is directed to consider its objections to the applications filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 for mutation of their names in the Record of Rights in respect of the above-mentioned land.

¶7

Under Section 5 (3) of the Act, if an application for mutation of the names in the Record of Rights is made, the Recording authority has to hold an enquiry, after giving notice to the persons interested.

¶8

The facts pleaded by the petitioner show that a civil proceeding is pending between the parties. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is interested in the property, in respect

¶9

of which respondent Nos.5 and 6 appeared to have approached respondent No.4 for mutation. While not expressing any opinion on the petitioner’s entitlement over the property, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner’s objections, if any, received by him before taking a decision on the application of respondent Nos.5 and 6 for mutation of their names in the Record of Rights.

¶10

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

¶11

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.39143 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶12

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶13

4^th November, 2013 v v

The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Adilabad v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Adilabad v. The District Collector

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

Chava Srirami Reddy Vs The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate

Rapolu Venugopal Rao, S/o. Venkatarajaiah Vs The State of A.P.

B.Poornachandra Reddy Vs TheDistrict Collector ANDMagistrate

N.Venakta Ramana Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gonepally Anjaneyulu, Vs State of A.P.

Mukkamalla Venkateshwara Reddy, Vs The District Collector