Disposed

Sri Tadipathri Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Telangana HC28 Jan 2016WP/2282/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged non-implementation of the Impugned order requiring the Tahsildar to prepare survey subdivision records and issue title deeds. Court was informed that new norms require payment of fee via Meeseva. Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to petitioners to comply with fee requirement.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioners to pay the requisite fee for subdivision preparation via Meeseva and directing the Tahsildar to implement the earlier order thereafter.

Sri Tadipathri Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2282 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed for non-implementation of the order, dated 23.09.2015, passed in the appeal vide D.Dis.No.6932/2014/C, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, the 3^rd respondent herein. The appeal was disposed of with the following directions:

¶6

“…. On receipt of the representations from the appellants and respondents, the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam shall implement the said order and make necessary changes and entries in the relevant Revenue records against the concerned respondents and issue the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds to them as per the procedure laid down under the A.P.R.O.R. Act 1971. Both the parties are directed to submit heir representations before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam along with this order for implementation. The appeal is disposed of with these observations.”

¶7

While the petitioners state that no action is taken thereafter by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam, the 4^th respondent herein, learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions submits as under:

¶8

“In this connection, I submit that as per orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam vide D.Dis.No.6932/2014/C., dt 23.09.2015, the petitioner applied for making Sub Division records manually without paying any requisite fee for Sub Division work. But as per present norms, the petitioner has to apply for making any preparation of Survey Sub Division record for the subject land through Meeseva with requisite fee for Rs.250/- on each Sub Division.

¶9

In view of the above, since the petitioners are seeking subdivision, they are required to pay requisite fee for the subdivision and learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would comply with the requirement as pointed out.

¶10

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to comply with the said requirement, and the

¶11

4^th respondent shall thereafter take up the matter in accordance with the directions of the 3^rd respondent as extracted above and do the needful without further loss of time. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶14

¶15

28.01.2016

Sri Tadipathri Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tadipathri Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

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

Aarikutti Nagarajulu Chittoor Dist and 20 Others Vs Prl Secy Revenue Dept Hyd and 2 Others

Sri Akbar Hussain, Vs J.Sudhakar Rao

Bairu Chandramma Vs The state of Telangana

Chanda Chandrasekhara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Maryala Yellamma Vs The State of Telangana, Rep., Its Secretary

Mohd.Javeed Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary