Disposed

Vakiti Ram Reddy, v. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

Telangana HC14 Jul 2014WP/18129/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed regarding the delay in mutation applications for agricultural land. It directed the third respondent to conduct an effective enquiry, consider both the petitioners' applications and third-party objections, and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and consider applications and objections within two months.

Vakiti Ram Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Nalgonda… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18129 of 2014

¶2

ORDER

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶4

2. Petitioners claim that they are the owners of various agricultural lands comprising in Sy.Nos.456, 457, 458, 442,469, 477, 478, 476, 461, 432, 435, 436, 599, 542, 540, 461 and 583, situated at Kondamadugu Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that as per the final decree in O.S.No.300 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Bhongir, the petitioners made a request for mutation of their names with regard to the balance lands left over after acquisition in the said survey numbers. On the said applications, the third respondent is stated to have been issued notices under Form-8 of Rule 19(1) of Andhra Pradesh Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989 calling objections from the third parties and for their appearance before him on 21.10.2013. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners contending that though the date of hearing of the objections was fixed as far as back on 21.10.2013, there is no progress in the matter and that the petitioners’ applications remain undisposed of and unconsidered.

¶5

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that in response to Form-8 notice, the third respondent has already received objections from the third parties and an enquiry date is fixed on 26.07.2014.

¶6

4. Since the third respondent has already fixed the hearing date on the objections received in response to the notice under Form-8,

¶7

I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the third respondent to conduct appropriate enquiry and consider the petitioners’ applications as well as the objections and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶9

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶10

14^th July, 2014 sj

Vakiti Ram Reddy, v. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakiti Ram Reddy, v. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

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

Tamada Nageswara Rao Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

Kottu Yerrayya Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

B.Krishna Reddy Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District

Pendyala Bhaskar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Talari Ramadevi Vs The REvenue Divisional Officer

Pavan Kumar Dolai Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal