Dismissed

Mekala Sreehari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC20 Jan 2016WP/3393/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage. It directed the District Revenue Officer to pass orders on a pending application dated 02.07.1998 regarding lands in Kukatpally and Moosapet villages without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direct the third respondent to pass orders on the application dated 02.07.1998 within the shortest possible time.

Mekala Sreehari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 3393 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for respondent No.5. With the consent of all 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 writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in not passing any orders in the application dated 02.07.1998 filed under Section 90 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 F and thereby not conducting the detailed enquiry in respect of lands in Sy.Nos. 353 and 354 of Kukatpally Village and lands in Sy.Nos.191 and 192 of Moosapet Village, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶6

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioners would show that the third respondent was not passing any orders on the representation dated 02.07.1998. The the legal heirs of pattadars including the petitioners made representation on 29.11.2011 to the second respondent to direct the third respondent to expedite the matter and to take immediate steps. On such representation, the second respondent directed the petitioners to furnish a copy of the application dated 02.07.1998. As directed by the second respondent, the petitioners submitted another application dated 17.12.2011 along with the application under Section 90 of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 F seeking necessary action, but till date no orders are passed. Hence, the

¶7

writ petition.

¶8

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent i.e. District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy, to pass orders on the application dated 02.07.1998 made by the petitioners, in accordance with law, at the earliest. If the said application is not traceable in the office of the third respondent, he can ask the petitioners to furnish a copy of the same in which event the same shall be finished within a week of such request. No order as to costs.

¶9

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

¶10

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶11

20.01.2016 gkv

Mekala Sreehari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Sreehari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 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

K. Suresh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ahmed Hussain Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Golla Chiranjeevi Vs The Commissioner ,Resettlement and Rehabitation

N.Sivaiah, Vs The District Collector

M.Kameswara Murthy Vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of

Vankudothu Govindaiah Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Adminsitration