Disposed

Rep by its Secretary v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC21 Nov 2013WP/33353/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-allotment of land by the Collector. The Court directed the respondent to pass an order with reasons for not considering the petitioners' representation regarding land assignment. As a sequel, a connected petition was disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to the respondent to pass an order within one month with reasons for not considering the representation for land assignment.

Rep by its Secretary Vs The Collector and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.33353 of 2013

¶2

Dated 2 1 st November, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Andhra Pradesh State Backward Classes Welfare Association and another

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The Collector & District Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Prabhakar Reddy for Smt.T.R.Padmaja

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.1 has not been considering the petitioners’ representations for allotment of Acs.16.16 guntas in Survey No.139 of Saidabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶14

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, submitted that the land in respect of which the petitioners are claiming patta/house sites is subject to litigation under the urban land ceiling proceedings involving respondent No.5 and that when the proceedings were at the stage of Section 10(5), the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 as adopted by the A.P.State Legislature has came into force, thereby the ULC proceedings have abated. As there is a serious claim by respondent No.5 over the property, the revenue authorities are not in a position to take possession of the same for the purpose of granting house sites.

¶15

Inasmuch as the petitioners’ representation made to respondent No.1

¶16

is stated to be pending, it is appropriate that the said respondent passes an order giving reasons for not being able to accept the request of the petitioners for assignment of the land for house sites. He shall communicate the order to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such order, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41497 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶19

21^st November, 2013 VGB

Rep by its Secretary v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rep by its Secretary v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deva Reddy Rajashekar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ambati Rama Lakshmi, W/o Venkat Reddy Vs The Tahsildar

Butta Hospitalities Private Limited Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Tekumatla Pullamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Namindla Jayapal, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Durgaben Patel, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh