Allowed

Pagilla Baswa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2019WP/4499/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to complete a de novo enquiry into land status expeditiously, within one month, adhering to a prior order's three-month timeline, addressing constitutional violations from delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to complete the de novo enquiry expeditiously and not later than one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Pagilla Baswa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON NO.4499 OF 2019

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

The prayer of the petitioner in this case reads as under:

¶5

‘For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring action of the respondent No.4 in not taking steps to dispose of petitioner’s representation dt.08-02-2018 as per order passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.F2/532/2016, dt.06-012018 is illegal, arbitrary, against Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 to record the name petitioners as pattedar of land in Sy.No.428 of Juluru Village, B. Pochampally Mandla, Nalgonda District and for issuance of Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds or pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.’

¶6

Perusal of the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Joint Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District, in the revision filed under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, demonstrates that he directed the Tahsildar, B.Pochampally Mandal, to conduct a de novo enquiry after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the persons, including the revision petitioner and the Deputy Collector and Secretary, Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board, and the allottees, so as to decide whether it is a Bhoodan or patta land and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of the order.

¶7

On 06.03.2019, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, was asked to get instructions as to why the matter has been kept pending by the Tahsildar concerned. Today, the learned Assistant Government

¶8

¶9

Pleader would inform this Court that the Tahsildar has already issued notice to the Bhoodan Yagna Board but is yet to conclude the de novo enquiry.

¶10

It is not open to the Tahsildar, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, to ignore the time stipulation fixed by the Joint Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District, in the revisionary order dated 06.01.2018. Though the said order required the Tahsildar to complete the enquiry within three months from the date of the order itself, he is yet to do so despite passage of more than a year.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of directing the Tahsildar, B.Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, to complete the de novo enquiry as directed by the Joint Collector, Yadadri Bhongir District, in his revisionary order dated 06.01.2018 expeditiously and in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶14

13^th MARCH, 2019 Svv

Pagilla Baswa Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pagilla Baswa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Jameel Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Ravinder Vs State of Telangana

Shiaik Named Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Smt K. Sarojini Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.Raghavendra S.Prasad, Hyd Vs Chalet Services Private Limited, Bangalore

B. Chinna Goud Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 6 Ors.