Allowed

Smt. P.Nagamani Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Jun 2016WP/19697/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's application to be declared as the successor lessee of her late husband's quarry lease. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by mandating the respondent to pass appropriate orders expeditiously without adjudicating the merits of the claim at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's letter dated 04.06.2016 within eight weeks.

Smt. P.Nagamani Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19697 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the State of Andhra Pradesh. At the request of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶5

2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶6

“… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not declaring the petitioner as Successor Lessee of original Lease holder (petitioner’s husband late P.Bala Anki Reddy), for quarrying color granite in Sy. No.425/1 (Khesara No.318) of Kairuppala village, Asperi Mandal, Kurnool District even after compliance of the directions of the 3^rd respondent by submitting the documents as requested including payment of dead rent as long back as on 04.06.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner as Successor Lessee in place of her late husband Mr. P.Bala Anki Reddy for the remaining period of lease and pass ..”

¶7

3. Though various grounds are raised in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking direction to respondent No.3 to consider

¶8

letter dated 04.06.2016 addressed by the petitioner requesting to declare her as successor lessee in place of late Bala Anki Reddy, who is her husband, for the remaining and unexpired portion of the lease period. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent No.3 has to take appropriate decision on the letter submitted by the petitioner.

¶9

4. In view of the submissions made and having regard to the circumstances of the case, without going into merits of the case, respondent No.3 is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on the letter dated 04.06.2016 submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶10

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶12

21.06.2016 DRK

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

W.P.No.19697 of 2016

¶15

21.06.2016

Smt. P.Nagamani Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P.Nagamani Kumari v. The State 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

Nellore Lakshmi Narsa Reddy Vs The State of A.P

M. Badradri Rami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Annabattula Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

B. Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rajesh Reddy Vankuri, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dhrudala Raghavender, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep by its Principal