Disposed

Mandala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, Represented by Prl.Secretary

Telangana HC25 Jul 2014WP/20431/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition alleging inaction by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It directed the officer to dispose of the pending appeal and interim application within a week.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to take up the pending appeal and interlocutory application within a week and pass orders on the interim application.

Mandala Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 20431 of 2014

BETWEEN

Mandala Sudhakar

... PETITIONER

AND

State of Telangana, represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard.

¶16

2. Petitioner, who states that he is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, Warangal in File No.A/704/2012 dated 10.06.2014, has already preferred an appeal under Section 5 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.3 herein. The said appeal presented on 07.07.2014 along with an application for interim relief is stated to be pending and is not being taken up and no orders have been passed. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed alleging inaction and also stating that the order of the Tahsildar, which is impugned in the appeal, is likely to be given effect to.

¶17

3. Though the writ petition was adjourned on 22.07.2014 to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions, further time is sought today. 4. Since the prayer of the petitioner is only limited to consideration of his interim application along with the appeal by respondent No.3, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 to take up the said appeal along with the interlocutory application within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders on the interim application at least, within one week stipulated as above.

¶18

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶20

July 25, 2014 Note: - Furnish copy by tomorrow. {B/o} LMV

Mandala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, Represented by Prl.Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, Represented by Prl.Secretary

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

Pendor Jaiwantha, D/o. Vasantha Rao, Vs The Government of Telangana

D.Gajender S/o.D.Suryankanth Vs Government of Telangana

Aluganti , Gopisetty Narappa, Vs The State of a.P.represented by

Pathala Satya Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission

Kandavalli Sudhakar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Afzal, Vs The District Collector