Disposed

Urmila Devi Rathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024WP/29347/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioner challenged inaction by revenue authorities regarding land regularization. The Court directed respondents to expedite consideration of the case per subsequent law without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directive to consider the petitioner's case for regularization of the land as per subsequent Government Orders.

Urmila Devi Rathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETI TION NO:29347 0F 2010

¶8

Between:

¶9

!Eli,i&:,',Ex',li:,#Jli3s;5:el:',lrtrTiaged55vears,occ Householder, Rl/o.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep by its principal Secretary, to the Govemment, Revenue oepariment, A.i. seCieirriJt, nvoeidoid.^-

¶13

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer at Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal at Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶17

petition Under Articre 226 or theconstitution or rndia ffi:T]ffIl: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent herein for not considering the case of the petitioner for regurarization of the rand as per G.o.Ms.No. 166, dated. 16.2.2008 in view of the representation made by the petitioner on 2g.9.2006 and also on 21.6.2008 in terms of the refter addressed from the office of the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.3 vide cclAs Ref.No.BB4/203812006, dated' 10.10.2006, in respect of the petitioners rand and decrare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice.

¶18

I.A.NO:'l OF 2010^(WPMP. NO: 37360^OF2010)

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^:;upport of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} direct the respondents to dispose off^{the caseof the petitionerfor regularization} of the land in view of the representation^{made by the petitionerdt. 28.9.2006and} 21.6.2008, as^per G.O.Ms.No.166, dt.^{16.2.2008,in respect of the PlotNo. C-129} admeasuring 4OO Square^yard in Survey^{No.964and 969 at BeeramgudaHamlet} of Ameerpur Village, Patancheru^{Mandalof Medak District, pending disposal of} the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SURESH^{SHIV SAGAR}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE^(ASSIGNMENT)

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.29347 oF 2010

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliel

¶26

"-..to pass an ord_er or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus d.eclaring the inaction of the respond.ents herein for^{not consideing} the case of the petitioner yor'regtularization of the lqnd as per G.O.Ms.No. 166, dated. 16.02.200A in uieut oy the representations made bg the petitioner on 2g.og.2oo6 and also on 21.06.2009 in term_s of the letter ad.d.ressed from the Olfi.ce of the Respondent No.2 to the Respond.ent No.3 uide CCLA's Ref No.BB4/ 2O3B/ 2006, d.ated. 1O. 1O.2,OOA fn ,""p."t of the petittoner,s land and declare t?rc same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and. against th-e pinciples of naturat justice and pass..."

¶27

Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant .Government pleader for Assignment appea_ring for the respondents and perrrsed the entire materia-l on record.

¶28

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Assignment submits that the petitioner made representations dated 2g.09.206 and, 2I.06.2O0g seeking

¶29

SK,J W.P.No.29347 of 201O

¶30

regularizatiorr of her land as per G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008 ertd in view of the undertaking given by the State of Telangana in PIL.No.S17 of 2013, dated 10,09.2015 before Division Bench of this Court and issued subsequent G.Os for reguLlarization and the respondents are unable to consider the case of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.O2.2OOB.

¶31

Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner made appli<:ation in view of the surbsequent G.O issued by the Government and requested to rlirect the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶32

In view of the submissions made by the both sides, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per law, if the petitioner files any

¶33

SICJ W.P.No.29347 of 2O1O

¶34

application as per subsequent G.Os. There shall be no

¶35

order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha,ll stand

¶37

clo sed.

¶38

SD/.V.^KAVITHA R ASS^{ISTANT REGIS}

¶39

,TTRUE^COPY//

¶40

SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

To t.

¶42

¶43

:sjff:i"i,ff^{}'flffi$,'nil-""*,#:::'ll]'}

¶44

1. 5 1lfiHl''l}fqfl1:nffiSn+ilgtp*;*g,;''l;l+lmeansanaa'i 6

¶45

7 Lyn[%t"",i"'.ii,'x'*="sHrvsAGAR'AdvocatetoPucl 8. Two^CDCopies SA

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 911212024

(-r t('
rL li,t r. , e
t,,;-t
ot'
Z i Ji,tt tatA
C)
\
d
D4Ii,hEI *

ORDER

WP.No.29347 ot 2010

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

rI
.il,r
v*

Urmila Devi Rathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi Rathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

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

Enugu Sarojana, Vs The Tahsildar, Pochampally Mandal

Nomumla Mohan Reddy (Died as per LRs Petitioners 4 to 6) Vs The Tahsildar

Jumbarthi Rajam Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Gandani Srinivas, Vs The District Collector

V.Sarojini, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

K. Mohan Reddy Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District