Telangana High Court
WP/33270/2010 of Addanki Mastan Rao Vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 31 December 2010
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33270 of 2010 Date: 31.12.2010 Between : Addanki Mastan Rao. ….Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33270 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33270 of 2010
Between :
Date: 31.12.2010
Addanki Mastan Rao.
….Petitioner
And
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole & others.
….Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION No.33270 of 2010ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way ofMandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in notdeciding the appeal pending on his file, pursuant to theremand order in D.Dis.No.3852/2000(D2), dated21.06.2004, passed by the Joint Collector, PrakasamDistrict, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequentialdirection to the 1[st] respondent to decide the said appeal.
Against issuance of pattadar passbooks with regardto the land covered by Sy.No.707/A of Kalavakuru villageof Addanki Mandal in Prakasam District, respondents 2and 3 have filed an appeal before the 1[st] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The said appeal wasrejected by an order, dated 30[th] March, 2000, vide ordersin D.Dis.No.517/97. As against the same, respondents 2and 3 herein have carried the matter in revision underSection 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and PattadarPassbooks Act, 1971, which is allowed and remanded byan order, dated 21.06.2004. The revisional authority,while setting aside the order of the RDO, directed him toconsider the matter again within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of the said order. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite ofsuch a direction, the appeal is not being disposed of bythe RDO, pursuant to the remand order passed by theJoint Collector.
I have perused the copy of the order passed by theRDO, Ongole, and also the order of the Joint Collector,Prakasam District. The Joint Collector, who is therevisional authority, as early as on 21.06.2004, hasrecorded a finding that the RDO has ignored someregistered sale deeds while passing the orders, as such,directed him to consider the matter again and dispose it ofwithin two months. In that view of the matter, there is noreason for keeping the appeal pending for this long time.
As much as it is stated that the appeal is stillpending consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose ofthe writ petition, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent-RDOto dispose of the appeal pursuant to the remand orderpassed by the Joint Collector, Prakasam District inD.Dis.No.3852/2000(D2), dated 21.06.2004, within aperiod of two months from today, by giving notice to thepetitioner and all other affected parties.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.
_____________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
31[st] December 2010
ajr