Disposed

Sonule Mondi v. The State of Telanana

Telangana HC16 Oct 2019WP/21835/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the long pendency of an appeal against a mutation order, the court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to examine the petitioner's claim, afford a personal hearing, and finalize proceedings within two months without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to examine the claim, afford personal hearing, and finalize proceedings within two months.

Sonule Mondi Vs The State of Telanana — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21835 OF 2019

¶3

Date:16.10.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sonule Mondi, S/o. Late Pandu, Aged 60 years, Occ: Business,R/o. Jaggaiahpet Village, Bheemini Mandal, Mancherial District (formerly Adilabad District)

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.21835 OF 2019

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶16

Aggrieved by the orders of the Tahsildar, Dahegoan Mandal, Komurambheem Asifabad District, dated 10.07.2018 regarding mutation exercise undertaken by him in respect of land to an extent of Acs.17.19 guntas in Survey No.107 of Borlakunta Village, Dahegaon Mandal, petitioner along with four others preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sirpur Kagaznagar, Komurambheem Asifabad District, the 3^rd respondent, which was acknowledged by the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer on 30.08.2018. This Writ Petition is filed alleging that even though the appeal was received on 30.08.2018 and in spite of reminders given to the 3^rd respondent, there was no progress and on account of long pendency of the appeal, grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner and his family members.

¶17

Since appeal was already received and pending before the 3^rd respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him and after affording due opportunity of personal hearing, finalize the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date

¶18

¶19

of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

Date:16.10.2019 KH

Sonule Mondi v. The State of Telanana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonule Mondi v. The State of Telanana

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

C.Mallikarjun Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 10

Bairoju Chilukamma Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Gollapally Nagamma Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Peers Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

M.v.Ramakrishna Rao and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

M. Kishore Reddy Vs The State of Telangana