Disposed

Doddi Satyakrishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Nov 2013WP/31795/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking pattadar passbooks because the representation was not in the prescribed Form-VIA. It permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application, directing the Respondent to hold an enquiry within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a fresh application in Form-VIA; Respondent to hold enquiry within two months.

Doddi Satyakrishna Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31795 of 2013 Date:07.11.2013

¶2

Between: Doddi Satyakrishna, S/o Basavaiah

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

And

¶5

The Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and two others.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Tulasi Das

¶8

Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.7.13 cents in Survey No.266/4 of Buttaigudem Village, H/o Ramannapalem Gram Panchayat, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District, filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that his representation, dated 04.03.2013, made to respondent No.3, for issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the above-mentioned land, is not being considered.

¶12

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner made a representation on 04.03.2013 to respondent No.3. But, the said representation is not in the prescribed form (Form-VIA). Unless the petitioner makes his application by following the prescribed procedure, no Mandamus can be issued to respondent No.3 for issue of

¶13

pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned land.

¶14

Sri S.Tulsi Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client may be permitted to make a fresh application in the prescribed form and that respondent No.3 may be directed to consider such application and take action in accordance with law.

¶15

Having regard to the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file an application in Form-VIA. Within two months from the date of receipt of such application, respondent No.3 shall hold an enquiry by following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder, take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶16

Subject to the above directions and with liberty to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.39515 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶19

07^th November 2013 DR

Doddi Satyakrishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddi Satyakrishna v. The State 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

S.R.P.M. Mazdoor Sangh, Vs Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

A. Lakshmi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Valluri Srilakshmi Vs The State of A.P.

Hafiz Meerja Mohammed Bai, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Syed Khaja, Vs A.P. State Wakf Board

Basavannagari Krishna, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal