Telangana High Court
WP/46101/2016 of Mulpuri Vijaya Raj Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by Principal Secretary, on 29 December 2016
SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.46101 OF 2016 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The present
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:
“…to issue a writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 2[nd] Respondent District Collector in not considering the application of the Petitioner dated 24.08.2015 as well the reminders dated 21.12.2015 and 07.11.2016 duly taking into consideration of the proceedings, dt.22.09.2015 of the 2[nd] Respondent in respect of the land in Sy.No.363 and 364 to an extent of Ac.6.22 Gts., and Ac.3.18 Gts., respectively situated at Ponkal Village, Jannaram Mandal of Mancherial District (formerly Adilabad District) as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the provisions of A.P./T.S. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 26 of 1971, the procedure prescribed under Rules, 1989, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2[nd]respondent to forthwith dispose of the aforementioned applications as sought for as per the procedure envisaged under the Act and Rules.”
3. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that pursuant to the application dated 24.08.2015 made by the petitioner, the 2[nd]respondent – Collector, directed the 3[rd] respondent- RDO vide proceedings dated 22.09.2015, to conduct an enquiry so as to take appropriate action on the issue within a period of one week, but till date no action has been taken.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that a suitable direction may be given to the 3[rd] respondent to take steps pursuant to the direction given by the 2[nd] respondent, in accordance with law.
5. Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing 3[rd] respondent-RDO to conduct an enquiry as directed by the 2[nd] respondent –Collector, in letter No.D1/1702/2015, dated 22.09.2015 and take appropriate action thereon, in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of six (06) to eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that RDO shall hear the petitioner and also the aggrieved persons, if any, before passing any order.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR