Disposed

Shaik Salar v. The Collector,Medak District,at Medak

Telangana HC10 Dec 2024WP/7116/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Tahsildar's inaction regarding a representation concerning land properties. The Supreme Court disposed of the matter, directing the respondent to dispose of the pending representation within six weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 29.09.2010 within six weeks after affording equal opportunity to be heard.

Shaik Salar Vs The Collector,Medak District,at Medak — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7116 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Salar, S/o.Late Shiak Hussain Business R/o.13-6-434/4 1210, Jyoti nagar Ring road,Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Collector, Medak District,at Medak.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional officer, Sa nga red dy,l,4ed a k Drstrict.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal,Medak District.

¶14

Rahman Bee, W/o.Late Shaik Hussian Household R/o.Chinna Kanjrla villge,Patancheru lvlandal Medak District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndja praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders ne in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No.3 for not disposing off the representation dated 29.9.2010 given by the petitioner for compliance of the orders of the Revenue Divisional officer, Sanga Reddy Medak District in File No.B4llnam/.185/93 dated 7.3.1995 which is confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in in WP.No.1120/200'1 dated 4.8.2008 in respect of the SY.Noi.93,98,99,1 00,1 01, 1 70,172,173,17 4,17 5,17 6,177,17 8,179,180,1 82,1 83,1 8 4,185,.'186,187,188,189 190,191,281,282,336,337,367lE,367|EE total admeasuring 23 acres 05 guntas situated at Chinna Kanjarla village, Patancheru mandal, Medak District and declare the same is illegal,arbitrary,against the principle of natural justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201'(WPMP. NO: 8875 OF 2011)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir, support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order direclingl the respondent No.3 not to pass any mutation order or issuance of pattedar passbook and the title deeds in favour of the respondent No.4 including the subsequent purchasers to the in SY. Noi.93,98,99, 1 00. 1 0 1,17 0,17 2,1i 3,17 4,1 7 5,17 6,177,1 7 8,17 g,1 80,1 82,1 83,1 8 4,185,.186,187,'18ti,189 190,191,281,282,336,337,367tE,367tEE totat admeasuring 23 at:res 05 guntas situated at Chinna Kanjarla village, patancheru mandal, Medak District pending disposal of writ petition.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201'lrWPMP. NO:27 809 0F 2011)

¶20

Between:

¶21

Shaik Salar, S/o.Late Shiak Hussain Business R/o.'13-6-434/fu210, Jyoti nagar Ring road,Hyderabad

¶22

.,.PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

The Collector [t/edak District,at Medak. 2. The Revenue Divisional officer,Sangareddy,Medak District.

¶25

The Tahsildar. Patancheru Mandal,Medak District.

¶26

Rahman Bee, W/o.Late Shaik Hussian Household Fl/o.Chinna Kanjrla villge, Patancheru Mandal Medak District.

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Shaik Shareel, Shahzadi Begum, S/o.Shaik Khaja, Agecj about 32 years. Occ: Business, RTo.Chinna Kanjrla Village,^pat6nche"nu Mandal, Meda( District.

¶29

O {fllqr]g ^ Sadashiva yadav, S/o.K.Muthyatu yadav, R/o.H.No.7-2-1792, CZECIV Colony. Sananthnagar, Hyderabad

¶30

R.affiuddin,. S.g Shirajuddin rlo.H.No.2-142, Jawaharnagar, Shameerpet, Medchal, New Hafeezpet, Hyderabad.

¶31

Shaik Khader, S/o.Shaik. /qla1O9e1, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Chinna Kanjrla Village, Patencherru Mandal, Medrk District.

¶32

shahzadi Begrrm w/o.Late. taik.Jahi Miya, R/o. Rr/o.chinna Kanjrra Viilage, Patencherru Mandal, Medak District.

¶33

10.Shaik Saleem, S/o.Shaik.Khaja, aged about 30 years, Occ: private Driver, R/o. H. No.4- 1 77lA,^prem tr,tagai, Nei Hafeezpei, H'yderabad.

¶34

Petition under Section^.15'l CPC praying that in the^{circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} implead the^proposed respondents 5 to 11 as^{necessaryparties in the array of} respondents, in the main writ^petioitn for^proper adjudication^{of the matter.}

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SURESH SHIV^SAGAR

¶36

Counsel.,for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 :

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

1 \

¶40

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶42

1VRIT PETITION No.7116 of 2Olt

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶45

Corlstitution ol India seeking the following relief:

¶46

"...to pdss an order or orders one in the nature of writ of mandamts by declaring the action of the respondent No.3 for not disposing off the representation dated 29.9.2010 given b.y the petitioner for compliance of the orders of the Revenue Divisional fficer,^{S,tnga Reddy,Medak District, in File No.B4/lnam/} 18 5/93 dated 7.3.1995, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.l 120i2001 dated 4.8.2008 in respect of the Sy.No.9-1. 98, 99, 1()0, t01, 170, 172, 173, t74, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, t80, t82. t83, 184. 185, 186, 187, t88, 189, t90, 191,28r,282.336, 337, 367/8, 367/EE total admeasuring 23 acres 05 guntas situated at Chinna Kanjarla Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District udd dcclare the same is illegal arbitrary..- "

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶48

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the materia-l on record.

¶49

It is cirse of the petitioner that the petltioner is questioning the inaction of the respondent No.3 for not disposing of the representation dated 29.09.2010 filed by the petitioner for compliance of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District in file

¶50

No.B4llnam /tSS/93, dated 07.03.199S, which is confirmed by this Court in W.p.No. ll2O of 2OO1 dated 04.08.2008 in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶51

4 In spite of lapse of more than thirteen (13) years, the respondent-authorities did not choose to file any counter in this matter for denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit.

¶52

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation dated 29.O9.2O1O filed by the petitioner within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving equal opportunit5r to the petitioner as well as the unollicial respondent. No order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶54

,TRUE COPY'

¶55

SDi-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶56

¶57

lu,'. SECTIO( OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

The Collector,Medak^{District,at Medak'}

¶60

The Revenue^{Divisional officer,sangareddy,Medak District'}

¶61

The Tahsildar,^{Patancheru Mandal,Medak District'}

¶62

One CC to SRI^{SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate'[OPUC]}

¶63

Two CCs^{to GP FOR REVENUE,High Court for the State of Telangana} tourl

¶64

Two CD^CoPies.

F*-^BSK

GJP

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 011212024

I H e $ra
c4
((
(-) 10
t4An 2U5
C
t
SPaTrur(,

¶71

ORDER

¶72

WP.No.7116 of 2011

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCSTS

¶74

-etr
q
&*

Shaik Salar v. The Collector,Medak District,at Medak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Salar v. The Collector,Medak District,at Medak

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

M.Bhikshapathi Goud, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Moorthy Ranga Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District

Syed Shabbir, Mahabubnagar District Vs Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad and 5 Others

Sana Tadi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thakur Dayaram Singh Vs The State of A.P.

Sri Padamati Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Vs The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar