Dismissed

M/s. Radha Realty Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Telangana HC1 Jul 2014WP/17967/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the writ petition challenging an order for mutation of lands pending, holding that the matter is sub judice in a pending revision and the petitioner can seek appropriate relief therein.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner granted liberty to agitate the order before the competent authority in the pending revision.

M/s. Radha Realty Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Writ Petition No.17967 of 2014

¶2

Dated 01.07.2014

¶3

Order:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5, in passing Order, dated 27-05-2014, in Case No.D/990/2011, without following the due process of law and without conducting any enquiry pending revision before respondent No.3, as illegal.

¶5

There appears to be a dispute regarding ownership and possession of the lands admeasuring Acs.3.31 guntas in Survey Nos.102, 114 and 116 of Narsingi Village between the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.7 to 9, in connection with which respondent No.6, who was the then Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, dismissed the application filed by respondent Nos.7 to 9 vide Proceeding No.A/990/2011, dated 08-02-2013, by holding that the petitioners’ predecessors viz., Narsimha Reddy, Garlapati Ramachandraiay, and Smt.Jelli Anasuya are pattadars of the said lands. Questioning the said Order, respondent Nos.8 and 9 filed appeal before

¶6

respondent No.4, who allowed the same vide Case No.C/2905/2013, dated 26-02-2014, and directed issuance of succession certificate, pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the subject lands to respondent Nos.8 and 9. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed revision No.D1/768/2014 before respondent No.3- Joint Collector. As the same was not being disposed of, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14458 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 15-05-2014, by issuing specific directions to respondent No.3 to consider the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner along with the revision and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks.

¶7

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that pending the said revision petition, respondent No.5 has passed order vide Case No.D/990/2011, dated 27-05-2014, holding that respondent Nos.7 to 9 being the legal heirs of deceased K.Narayana, their names shall be mutated in the revenue records. It is brought to the notice of this Court that while the date of hearing of the revision petition was fixed as 05-07-2014 at 2.30 p.m, the officer, who was holding the post of respondent No.5 and who is impleaded in his personal capacity as

¶8

respondent No.6 herein has passed the impugned order, in implementation of Order, dated 26-02-2014, passed by respondent No.4, which is subjudice in the revision pending before respondent No.3. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to set aside the impugned Order, dated 27-052014, passed by respondent No.5 as the same is without notice, antedated and ex facie illegal.

¶9

Since the order of respondent No.5 is a consequential order to the order passed by respondent No.4 and order of respondent No.4 is subjudice in revision before respondent No.3, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. As the revision is likely to be heard shortly on 05-07-2014 and if the petitioner succeeds therein, the order of respondent No.4 and that of respondent No.5 would lose its validity. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the correctness or otherwise of Order, dated 27-05-2014, passed by respondent No.5 before respondent No.3 as well, in the pending revision and seek appropriate relief with regard to the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________ (Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J)

¶12

Date: 1^st July, 2014 lur

M/s. Radha Realty Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Radha Realty Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

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

T.Munemma W/o T.Guravareddy Vs The Government of A.P.

A.Drakshaveni Vs The Government of A.P. rep by its Prl. Secretary

Velamuri Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Chalama Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Penta Reddy Bal Reddy, aged about 69 years, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by

Komarraju Rajeshwar Rao Vs Government of Telangana

Kawalkar Pentu, Vs The State of Telangana