A single judge dismissed a writ petition questioning a cancellation of pattadar passbook. The court held the petitioner should approach the revisional authority (Joint Collector) instead, dismissing the writ as they declined to entertain it.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.782 of 2016
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
The petitioner questions the order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling his pattadar passbook. The said order is clearly subjected to revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act and the said revision is admittedly filed by the 5th respondent. The petitioner however, questions the said order under this writ petition merely on the ground that he is not a party to the said revision. Irrespective of the fact that whether the petitioner is a party or not, he may as well questions the same, by approaching the Joint Collector by filing a revision. The impugned order itself is passed on 19.08.2015 and more than four months have already elapsed. Therefore, there is no reason why petitioner should not be relegated to the said revisional authority.
In view of the above, it is not proper to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
Date: 07-01-2016 Kvrm
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.782 of 2016
Dated: 07-01-2016
kvrm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order when a revision under the relevant Act is available but the petitioner is claiming they are not a party to that revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
3rd Respondent
5th Respondent
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
