Disposed

C.Parvathamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Aug 2021WP/18435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition claiming inaction by the 2nd respondent regarding a revision petition filed under the Land Encroachment Act. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the court directed the Additional Collector to verify records and finalize proceedings within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to verify records concerning pending revision and finalize proceedings within four weeks; no costs.

C.Parvathamma Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 18435 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

C.Parvathamma, W/o.C.Venkatesh, aged about 62 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.P-4-30/A/183, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Film Nagar, Jubli Hills, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PET|TIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶15

Sri Bhavani Welfare Association, Regd. No.1462193, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Colony Road No.7, Film Nagar, Jubli Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not disposing of the Revision petition filed by the Petitioner vide proceedings E7l31699/2018 on 24-02-2018 before the 2nd respondent which was reserved for orders on 02-022019 against the orders of the 3rd Respondent vide Proc.No.Bl174412016 daled 10-02-2018 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the revision petition No. E7l31699/2018 forthwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Sebtion 151 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 respondents 1 to 4 to protect the petitioners assignment patta land of an extent of 30 sq.yards in Sy.No.102/1 , Hakeempet Village, Bhaghatsingh Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad which is under the custody of respondents 1 to 4 from any communal encroachment by the 6th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N. SAIDA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: NONE APPEARED

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

I I

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVtrtrN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 18435 ol 2021

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard lerlrned counsel for petitioner Sri N Saida Rao and

¶30

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶31

This writ petition is filed, seeking following direction

¶32

'..,......to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 to S in not disposing of the Revision petition filed by the Petitioner vide proceedings E7 13169912018 on 24-Q2-2O18 before the 2"d respondent $.hich was reserved for orders on 02-02-2019 against the orders of the 3.d Respondent vide proc. No. B/1,74412016 datr:d 10-02-2018 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 2na respondent herein to dispose of the revision petition No. EZ / 3\699 l2Ol8 forthwith and pass,,......"

¶33

Aggrieved by the orders of the Special Executive Magistrate dated 10.2.2018 affirming the decision of the Tahsildar, revision was preferred under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 before the Joint Collector, who assigned the revision number as E7 13\699 of 2018. The Joint Collector heard the revision on 2.2.2019 and reserved for orders. Petitioner contends that so far no orders are passed.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Saida Rao submits that several legal notices were issued requesting to pass orders on the revision but so far no decision is made causing hardship and suffering to petitioner. He submits that there is no justification in not finalizing the revision.

¶35

Copy of the revision (Ex.pl), notice dated 3.1.2019 fixing date of hearing on 2.2.2019 (Ex.p-g), Legal Notices issued on 27.3.2019, 4.3.2021 and S.S.2021 and representation dated 26.7.2021 (Ex.P-9) are filed in the writ petition paper book.

¶36

In view rhereof and without expressing any opinion on merits, the u'rit petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-

¶37

-3

¶38

Additionai Collector/Joint Collector to verify his office records concerning File No. E7/31699/2018 and if no orders are already passed, to take steps to finalise the proceedings. If on verification, it is found that a decision was already made and communicated to party, the same iact be informed to petitioner. Further, though decision was already made but was not communicated to the party, the same be communicated to the petltioner. Entire exercise be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

¶40

To,

¶41

Sd/.K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -r' SECTION OFFICER

¶42

The Principal Sg_gel?ry, Department of Revenue, State of Telangana, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Joint Collector and Additiirnal District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. The Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Hyderbbad.

¶44

4E The The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Begumpet, [r,4andal, Hyderabad. Hyderabad 6 One CC to Sri N. Saida Rao, Advo'cate tOpUCl 7 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for th6 State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

1. Two CD Copies

¶46

One Spare Copy

CHR Nk

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610812021

ORDER

$e STArE
(
o 02 $tP20t1 >.I>
J,'

D53'1r

¶52

W.P.No.18435 c,f 2021

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

C.Parvathamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Parvathamma 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

Guguloth Krishna and another Vs State of Telangana and 4 others

Martha Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Potla Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Adhishankara Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

D. Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Bodige Ramdas Goud, Vs The State of Telangana