Disposed

M. Srinivas Reddy v. State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Dec 2015WA/1104/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench allowed leave to appeal challenges a Single Judge's order regarding mutation proceedings. The court permitted appellants to file objections to representations filed by respondents before the Tahsildar, ensuring notices were issued prior to a final decision on the mutation of revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file objections to representations filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 8 against the pending mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar.

M. Srinivas Reddy Vs State of Telangana, Rep.by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WAMP No.2713 OF 2015 AND

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.1104 OF 2015

¶6

10-12-2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Srinivas Reddy and another

¶9

… Appellants

¶10

And

¶11

State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶14

WAMP No.2713 OF 2015 AND WRIT APPEAL No.1104 OF 2015

¶15

PC: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V. Bhatt)

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for respondent Nos.4 to 8.

¶17

In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioners seek the following

¶18

relief:

¶19

“For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to the appellants herein to challenge the order dated 07.9.2015 passed in WP No. 28842 of 2015 by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and be pleased to pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶20

The learned single Judge disposed of Writ Petition No.28842 of

¶21

2015 by the following innocuous order:

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioners complain the inaction on the part of the

¶24

Tahsildar, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the 3^rd respondent, in passing appropriate orders on the application filed by them on 06.05.2015 under Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 by paying necessary fee through Online for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶25

Since the application of the petitioners is required to be

¶26

considered and disposed of within a time bound schedule of 45 days, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the said application on its own merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his prayer for grant of leave to appeal contends that respondent No.3 in terms of writ order is proceeding to effect mutation in the revenue records without issuing notice to petitioners herein.

¶28

We have perused the order of the learned single Judge. In our view, what is submitted across the Bar is only an apprehension. To ally the fears, we permit the petitioners to file objections before respondent No.3 against the representation filed by respondent Nos.4 to 8. Respondent No.3 shall consider the representation as well as the objections of parties, before any decision is taken in this behalf.

¶29

With the above observations, the miscellaneous petition is disposed of. Consequently, writ appeal (SR) is closed and disposed of as such.

¶30

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶31

S.V. BHATT, J

¶32

10-12-2015 ks

M. Srinivas Reddy v. State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Srinivas Reddy v. State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal 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

D.Sudhakar, Vs Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs The Kendriya Bhandar

V.Sankara Rao, Vs Directorate of Town and Country Planning

M/s. Rowfin Real Estates (P) Ltd., Vs Joint Collector

Marineni Mallikarjuna Vs The Agricultural Market Committee Pattikonda

Oil and Natural Gas Corpm. Ltd., K.G. Asset, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh