Allowed

Saila Narsa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Oct 2018WP/34384/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order rejecting a correction request for pahanies without prior notice to produce documentary evidence, directing the respondent Tahsildar to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before a fresh consideration. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Memo dated 09.11.2015 set aside; petitioners directed to make fresh representation with documents after opportunity of hearing.

Saila Narsa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

W.P.NO.34384 OF 2015

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject lands under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.7046 of 2000, 4655 of 2006 and 4878 of 2011 and their names were mutated in the revenue records and that when they obtained pahany copies from mee-seva, in the column of source of acquirement, mistakenly it is shown as ‘Laowni patta’. For correction of the same, they made representation dated 05.10.2015 to the 2^nd respondent – Tahsilldar. As no action has been taken, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶5

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, by producing copy of the memo bearing No.B/2624/2015 dated 09.11.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent submitted that as the petitioners have not produced any documentary

¶6

evidence in support of their request, the same was rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed that petitioners have

¶8

not produced the documentary evidence.

¶9

As per the claim of the petitioners, they purchased the subject property under registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in the revenue records and 1-B form was also issued, but in the pahanies, instead of showing the subject property as patta lands, it is shown as ‘Laowni patta’. When the petitioners made representation for correction of column relating to source of acquirement in the pahanies, the 2^nd respondent, before rejecting their request

¶10

¶11

on the ground of non-production of documentary evidence, ought to have issued notice requiring them to produce the relevant documents. The memo of the 2^nd respondent dated 09.11.2015 produced by the learned Assistant Government

¶12

Pleader for Revenue, does not disclose that any notice was issued to the petitioners. In view of the same, the memo dated 09.11.2015 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶13

It is open to the petitioners to make fresh representation along with necessary documents and the 2^nd respondent – Tahsildar, is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for correction of Mee-Seva pahani in respect of subject land, after affording them opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶14

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ---------------------------------------------------- A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶16

DATE:22—10—2018 AVS

Saila Narsa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saila Narsa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohd. Jamal Vs the Chief Manager

Prathima Multiplex Private Limited Vs State of Telangana

Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy, Vs The State of Telangana

Siddala Kanthamma Vs State of Ap

Kuchimanchi Seethayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchiraju Kasinath Vs State of Telangana