Disposed

Sudhakar Patil v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Aug 2020WP/12466/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the proposed shifting of the Zaheerabad Sub-Registrar Office to Huggeli village as arbitrary and illegal. The High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct the enquiry within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to comply with the District Collector's letter dated 12.02.2020 and conduct the enquiry within six weeks.

Sudhakar Patil Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12466 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sudhakar Patil, S/o La_te shyam Rao patil Aged about 50yrs, occ.Agriculture R:/o H.No.2-1-148, NGO Colony Shanthi Nagai, Zaheerabad town Saigareddy District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Princlpal Secretary, Revenue

¶11

(Stamps and Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The lnspector General of Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad

¶13

The District Registrar, Sangareddy District

¶14

The District Collector, Sangareddy District

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District

¶16

The Sub-Registrar, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of lVlandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in not conducting enquiry and taking necessary action with regard to the shifting of the Sub-Registrar O'ffice, Zaheerabad to Huggeli village in compliance of the letter of the 4th respondent dt. 121212020 bearing Lr..No. C1l13512020, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent authorities to drop the proposal of shifting of Sub-Registrar Office from Zaheerabad Town to Huggeli village.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 5 to conduct enquiry with regard to the shifting of Sub-Registrar Office from Zaheerabad Town to Huggeli village in terms of the Letter dt.12-2-2020 bearing Lr.No.C1l135/2020 of the 4rh respondent,^pending disposal of main Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENKATESWERLU KESAMSETTY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^REVENUE

¶23

The Court at the stage of admission^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶24

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.12466 of 2O2O

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. With their consent. the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶30

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.4 - District Collector, Sanga Redd_t' District, uide letter dated 12.02.2020 has directed respondent No.3 - District Registrar and respondent No.5 - Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry and take necessan' action as per Rule and report compliance, the respondent Nos.3 and 5 are not taking any steps to conduct the enquiry and pass necessary orders with regard to the shifting of the Sub-Registrar Office , Zaheerabad, to Higgeli Village.

¶31

The learned^(lovernment Pleader lor Revenue has stated that due to the pandemic situation prevailing in the countr)', and the subsequent lockdou'n, the Revenue Divisional Officer could not compl-r' s ith the directions of the District Collector uide Tetter dated 12.02.2020, and seeks some time to conduct the enquir,r'and pass necessan'orders as per the directions of the District Collector.

¶32

In view of the above made submissions, the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.5 - Revenue Divisional Oflicer is directed to comply with the direction of the District Coliector uide letter dated 12.O2.2O2O , as expeditiously as

¶33

possibic, preferabl-. \.ithin a period of 6rigl-)t u.eel<s from tl_re

¶34

date of receipt of a copv ol this order.

¶35

The r,l.rit petition is accordingir. disposed of.

¶36

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if ar_ry, shalt stand

¶37

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶43

The lnspector General of Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad

¶44

The District Registrar, Sangareddy District

¶45

The Dislrict Collector, Sangareddy District

¶46

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Zaheerabad,^{Sangareddy District}

¶47

The Sub-Registrar, Zaheerabad,^{SangareddyDistrict}

¶48

One CC to Sri Venkateswerlu^{Kesamsetty, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

B. Two CCs to GP^{for Revenue' High Courtfor the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

Two CD CoPies

HIGH^COURT

DATED:27l08/2020

Hz rA 14:
co 0 I SiP 20'20 a
{+
l: D -f c *

ORDER

WP.No.12466^o12020

DISPOSING OF THE WP

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

\
r-,, -1 -(2 |
/u''

Sudhakar Patil v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Patil 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

Bommena Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Bal Reddy Janidi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Garlapati Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N.Ananda and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

M/s Vimsho Food Products Private Limited Vs The state of Telangana

Late Seetharama Rao Vs the State of Telangana