Remanded

Mirza Mujahid Baig, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2018WP/5659/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) while the petitioner was litigant in OS.No.322/1991. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.01.2018 in RC.No.E/824/2017 set aside; matter remitted back to the 2nd respondent to revise afresh within three months.

Mirza Mujahid Baig, Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5659 OF 2018

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent in RC.No.E/824/2015 and to quash the same.

¶4

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner produced rectification deed rectifying the name of the village, the appellate authority (The RDO, Manthani) as well as the Revisional Authority has not considered the same; and that the Revenue Divisional Officer has entertained the appeal after a period of six years.

¶5

Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶6

Revenue and counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

¶7

The fact that respondents 6 and 7 suffered decree in OS.No.322 of 1991 and dismissal of appeal filed by them against the said decree were also not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

¶8

Admittedly, respondents 6 and 7 suffered decree when a suit in OS.No.322/1991 is instituted by the petitioner’s vendor’s father and the appeal against the said suit was also dismissed and became final.

¶9

¶10

These aspects have to be considered by the Revisional Authority i.e. 2^nd respondent. This court is of the opinion that the 2^nd respondent has not considered above aspects.

¶11

Both the counsel submit that the impugned order can liable to be set aside and the matter can be remitted to the Revisional Authority.

¶12

In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed in Rc.No.E/824/2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent. Further the 2^nd respondent is directed to dispose of the revision afresh within three months after issuing notice and after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties by considering the objections raised by them in this writ petition.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim

¶14

order granted on 21.02.2018 shall continue till disposal of revision by the 2^nd respondent. No order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 23.10.2018 t k.

Mirza Mujahid Baig, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirza Mujahid Baig, 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

Saila Narsa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kuchimanchi Seethayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchiraju Kasinath Vs State of Telangana

M.a.Razak Vs State of Telangana

V. Purnachandra Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Jagannadham Devadasu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh