Allowed

Purru Jangaiah, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC4 Jan 2016WP/27953/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge High Court order dismissed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the Respondent Divisional Officer's inaction in conducting a de novo enquiry was illegal. It directed the Divisional Officer to hold the enquiry promptly as ordered by the Joint Collector, issuing notices to all parties and disposing of the matter in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry within 12 weeks, issuing notices to all parties and the Secretary of the Wakf Board as per law.

Purru Jangaiah, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 27953 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Revenue. With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is heard at the admission stage itself.

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not conducting de novo enquiry as directed by respondent No.3 in Case No.F1/707/2009, dated 07.11.2009, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶6

The facts in issue are as under:

¶7

The petitioners claim themselves to be in possession of Inam Lands admeasuring Ac.3.03 gts., in sy.No.169, Ac.1.10 gts., in Sy.N.170, Ac.1.14 gts., in Sy.No.171, Ac.1.30 gts., in Sy.No.194, Ac.2.35 gts., in Sy.No.195, Ac.3.00 gts., in Sy.No.196, Ac.2.26 gts., in Sy.No.197, Ac.1.39 gts., in Sy.No.198, Ac.2.23 gts., in Sy.No.199 and Ac.2.22 gts., in Sy.No.22, situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District from 01.11.1973 till date. While so, respondent Nos.4 to 9 filed a petition before respondent No.2 for issuance of the Occupancy Rights Certificate without making the petitioners as parties. Accepting the request made the respondent No.2 passed orders vide proceedings No.J/4143/1993, dated 30.10.1993. After coming to know about the same, the petitioners questioned the said order before respondent No.3. After hearing the appeal filed under Section 24

¶8

of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, respondent No.3 remanded the matter back to the R.D.O., with the following observations.

¶9

“The suit lands are service inam lands attached to a mosque situated at Edulabad village and the orders of R.D.O. in file No.J/4148/1993, dated 30.10.1993 were set aside and the case was remanded to R.D.O. for de novo enquiry and to dispose in accordance with law duly giving an opportunity to the Secretary, Wakf Board also.”

¶10

The inaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer in not conducting de novo enquiry as ordered by respondent No.3 is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of a positive direction given by the Joint Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to conduct de novo enquiry. No counter is filed opposing the same.

¶12

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer (respondent No.2) to conduct de novo enquiry as directed by respondent No.3 in Case No.F1/707/2009, dated 07.11.2009, if it is not already done, at the earliest, preferably within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is needless to mention that the authorities shall issue notice to all the aggrieved persons and also to the Secretary of Wakf Board, as directed by respondent No.3 and pass orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶13

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶15

04.01.2016 gkv

Purru Jangaiah, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purru Jangaiah, v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

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

Mula Thirupathi Reddy Vs Sunki Amruthamma

Mula Thirupathi Reddy, Vs Sunki Amruthamma

Konduru Narasa Raju, Vs Govt. of a.P., Department of Home (Genl. (C))

B.Malla Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Prl. Secretary

Yenupothula Ashok and 7 Others Vs the State of A.P.

A.Malikarjuna Vs the State of A.P.