Dismissed

Ilapuram Rama v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Jul 2014WP/7258/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus for the assignment of house site pattas, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing the claim of inaction, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's request in terms of existing proposals and pass orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's request for assignment in terms of the referred proposals and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

Ilapuram Rama Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 ELEVENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 7258 of 2014

BETWEEN

Illapuram Rama

... PETITIONER

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T. KOTESWARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶17

2. Petitioner, who seeks assignment, is aggrieved by the inaction on the

¶18

part of the respondents. She claims that she is entitled to grant of house site pattas in Survey Nos.175 and 176 of Kumarpally Village (Gundlasingaram), Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. It is stated that the case of the petitioner along with others was already examined by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar in his report, dated 04.09.2013,

¶19

in Rc.No.C/2948/2012, recommended the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider granting of house sites to 52 beneficiaries, which includes the petitioner.

¶20

3. On the last date of hearing, learned Government Pleader had submitted, on instructions, that the recommendations have now been forwarded to the Collector and the orders of the Collector are awaited. Thereafter, the matter underwent three adjournments, but no orders appear to have been passed by the Collector. Learned Government Pleader now represents that the matter has to be examined by the Committee constituted by the Government and the name of the petitioner having been already included in the list of 52 beneficiaries, the same will also be considered as and when the Committee considers the proposals referred to above.

¶21

4. In view of that, therefore, I do not see any inaction which warrants Mandamus as prayed for.

¶22

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for assignment in terms of the proposals, referred to above, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶24

July 11, 2014 LMV

Ilapuram Rama v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ilapuram Rama v. The Government 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

T.Narayanamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Anjili Tete, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rakapally Srinivasa Siva Ramasubba Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

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