Disposed

Smt. VepuriNiharika v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Nov 2019WP/23622/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition filed regarding inaction in mutation proceedings directed the Tahsildar to finalize the proceedings expeditiously within six weeks, fixing hearing dates and intimating parties, thereby addressing the apprehension of delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Tahsildar to finalize the mutation proceedings by fixing hearing dates and intimating parties, to be completed within six weeks from the date of this order.

Smt. VepuriNiharika Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23622 OF 2019

¶3

Dated:13.11.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Vepuri Niharika, W/o. Konda Mahesh, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Kotha Rangapuram Village, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District and another .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

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

¶8

This Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23622 OF 2019

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K. Chinna Baba, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶13

Petitioners claim that Smt. Vepuru Anasuyamma, the 3^rd respondent, executed two gift deeds in favour of petitioners on 16.04.2011 gifting each of them land admeasuring Ac.1.30 guntas in Survey No.75/AA/2 of Rangapur Village, H/o. Muddunuru Gram Panchayat. By relying on the alleged two gift deeds, application in Form VI-A was submitted by the petitioners to the Tahsildar, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District, the 2^nd respondent, requesting him to mutate their names in the revenue records. Alleging inaction on the said application, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶14

Sri K. Chinna Baba, learned counsel for respondent No.3, made submissions on merits to contend that there was never such gift settlement deed and the gift settlement deed relied upon by the petitioners is not valid and mutation proceedings cannot be taken up relying on the said document.

¶15

The Court is not entering into the respective claims having regard to the fact that the Tahsildar has taken up the application filed by the petitioners in Form VI-A and issued notices to the parties to appear before him. It is not denied by both the learned counsel that the said application is yet to be decided and the matter is pending consideration by the

¶16

¶17

Tahsildar. Only apprehension of the petitioners is that inordinate delay would be caused in resolving the issue causing hardship to the respective parties.

¶18

Having regard to the said submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to finalize the proceedings pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioners for mutation of their names in ROR Case No.B/Revenue Appeals/433/2018 expeditiously by fixing the dates of hearing and intimating the same to the parties or their counsel in advance and on the date fixed, both parties shall appear in person or through their counsel and make submissions. If they do not appear on the date fixed, it is open to the Tahsildar to finalize the issue based on the record available. If the parties appear and make their submissions, on due consideration of the respective submissions by assigning reasons in support of the decision, the Tahsildar shall pass orders. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

____________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶20

Date:13.11.2019 KH

Smt. VepuriNiharika v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. VepuriNiharika 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

M/s. Indu Projects Limited, Vs Telangana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Syed Zaki Hussain Razvi Vs Sunitha Goel

Syed Zaki Hussain Razvi Vs Sunitha Goel (Died)

Noor Jahan Begum Vs The State of Talangana, And 3 Others

Sireesh Anumula Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others

Himjal Beverages Pvt. Ltd.. Vs The State of Telangana And 2 Others