Telangana High Court
WP/38854/2013 of Smt.Kanakala Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Laxmana Rao, Vs Tahsildar, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, on 31 December 2013
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.38854 of 2013 Date : 31-12-2013 Between : Smt. Kanakala Venkata Lakshmi and others .. Petitioners And Tahsildar, Bhimunipatnam mandal, Vsiakhapatnam District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao Counsel for respondents :
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.38854 of 2013
Date : 31-12-2013
Between :
Smt. Kanakala Venkata Lakshmi
and others ..
Petitioners
And
Tahsildar,
Bhimunipatnam mandal,
Vsiakhapatnam District and others ..
Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Sri K. Sarvabhouma RaoCounsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
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:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that thepetitioners who claim to have been granted house sitepattas are being prevented from raising constructionsthereon.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue (Assignments), while candidlyadmitting that the petitioners are in possession of the housesites, however denied the claim of the petitioners that theywere already granted house site pattas. She furthersubmitted that the petitioners were identified as beneficiariesunder the Indiramma Housing Scheme and pattas havebeen prepared by respondent No.1 for distribution and thatcounter-signatures of the Revenue Divisional officer,Visakhapatnam, are being awaited.
Irrespective of whether the claim of the petitioners thatthey were granted pattas is correct or not, the fact asreported by the learned Assistant Government Pleaderwould remain that the petitioners are identified as eligiblebeneficiaries for being granted house site pattas. If the formality of obtaining counter-signatures of the RevenueDivisional officer is the only constraint in granting pattas tothe petitioners, I do not find any reason whatsoever forfurther delaying the distribution of the pattas only on thatground. Respondent No.2 is therefore directed to ensurethat the pattas stated to have been prepared by respondentNo.1 are distributed to the petitioners within a period of onemonth from the date of receipt of this order. Upon suchdistribution, the petitioners shall be entitled to raiseconstructions over their respective sites.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMPNo.48297/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 31-12-2013
Note: Furnish copy in (3) days.
AM