Disposed

Koneru Padmavathi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Jul 2013WP/36959/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a writ petition seeking mandatory execution of a conveyance deed for land. Respondents admitted full payment and readiness to execute the deed, leading to a direction to execute within one week, with the writ petition subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner within a week.

Koneru Padmavathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.36959 of 2012

¶3

DATED: 19..07..2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Koneru Padmavathi, Visakhapatnam

¶6

… Petitioner And

¶7

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam & Another.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶10

Writ Petition No.36959 of 2012

¶11

ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus

¶13

declaring the action of the Respondents in not executing the Conveyance Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of 220 sq. yards with RCC Roof in Plot No.3, Sy.No.112 of Chinagadili village & Mandal, pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Court in common order dt. 20.03.1995 in LGC Nos.15, 17 and 60 of 1989, confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court by order dt. 21.12.1995 in W.P.No.9235 & 9536 of 1995, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to execute the Conveyance Deed.

¶14

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that in pursuance of the directions of the Special Court in the above LGC, the petitioner deposited the required amounts in instalments and therefore she is entitled for the conveyance of title to her.

¶15

3. The matter underwent several adjournments for filing of counter and ultimately we directed the personal appearance of the 1^st Respondent before the Court to explain the reasons for not implementing the order of the Court by executing the conveyance deed. Today when the matter came up for hearing, it is stated on behalf of the Respondents that they have no objection for executing the conveyance deed, as all the instalments are paid and they are ready and wiling to execute the conveyance deed immediately in favour of the petitioner without any further delay. The Respondents also explained the reasons for the delay in the present matter and tendered apology for the same.

¶16

4. Recording the above said submissions made by the 1^st Respondent, we dispose of the writ petition directing the 1^st Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner within a week’s time without raising any further objections.

¶17

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel,

¶18

the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed accordingly. No costs.

¶19

_______________ N.V. RAMANA, J

¶20

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt. 19..07.2013 Kv

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶22

Writ Petition No.36959 of 2012 (ORDER of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)

¶23

19..07..2013 Kv

Koneru Padmavathi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koneru Padmavathi, v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s. Aruna Industries, Rep. by its Proprietrix Smt. M. Aruna

E. Rama Rao, S/o E. Venkappa Vs The Honble IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur

Singampally Ramana, Vs The Tahsildar, Chintapalli, Visakhapatnam Dist.

Dasari Suresh Chaithanya S/o. Late Sri Ravi Kumar, Vs The Election Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. Vs Chemie Fine Laboratories Private Limited

Sri.Poonam Chand Jain, Vs Authorised Officer, The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd.