Telangana High Court
WP/24729/2004 of Peram Sri Ramulu Reddy, Vs The District Collector, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24729 of 2004 Between: 1 Peram Sri Ramulu Reddy, s/o Late Peddi Reddy, 2 Peram Ramana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO.24729 of 2004
Between:
1 Peram Sri Ramulu Reddy, s/o Late Peddi Reddy, 2 Peram Ramana Reddy, S/o Late Peddi Reddy, 3 Bapi Reddy Venkata Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy,4 Peram Erukalamma, W/o Late Chimidi Reddy,5 Peram Pedda Subba Reddy, S/o Late Chimidi Reddy,6 Peram China Subba Reddy, S/o Late Chimidi Reddy,7 Maram Pedda Nagamma, w/o Late Eukala Reddy,8 Badam China Nagamma, W/o China Pitchi Reddy,9 Maram Adi Lakshmamma, D/o Late Chimidi Reddy, All are Agriculturists, R/o Kunchepalli (Vil), Podili Mandal, PrakasamDistrict.AND1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podili Mandal, Podili, Prakasam District.4 Peram Erukalamma, W/o Late Chimidi Reddy,5 Peram Pedda Subba Reddy, S/o Late Chimidi Reddy,6 Peram China Subba Reddy, S/o Late Chimidi Reddy,7 Maram Pedda Nagamma, w/o Late Eukala Reddy,8 Badam China Nagamma, W/o China Pitchi Reddy,9 Maram Adi Lakshmamma, D/o Late Chimidi Reddy, All are Agriculturists, R/o Kunchepalli (Vil), Podili Mandal, PrakasamDistrict.AND1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podili Mandal, Podili, Prakasam District.
.... PETITIONERS
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Podili Mandal,Podili, Prakasam District in not considering the representation dated 21.12.2004
submitted by the petitioners for the implementation of the land in R.S.No.127/5,Extent Ac.0.29 cents; R.S.No.127/6, Extent Ac.0.31 cents; R.S.No.127/7, ExtentAc.0.03 cents; R.S.No.127/8, Extent Ac.0.68 cents; R.S.No.127/9, extent Ac.0.38cents; R.S.No.115/1, extent Ac.0.72 cents; R.S.No.127/10, extent Ac.0.14 cents;R.S.No.115/2, extent Ac.12.65 cents; R.S.No.114/5, extent Ac.4.09 cents ofKunchepalli village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District in revenue records and issuepattedar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioners, is arbitrary, illegal, withoutjurisdiction and consequently direct the Mandal Revenue Officer, Podili Mandal,Podili, Prakasam District to consider the representation dated 21.12.2004 submittedby the petitioners.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CH.CKRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court, at the admission stage, 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:
The petitioners claim to be owners and possessors of lands in R.S.No.127/5, extentAc.0.29 cents; R.S.No.127/6, extent Ac.0.31 cents; R.S.No.127/7, extent Ac.0.03cents; R.S.No.127/8, extent Ac.0.68 cents; R.S.No.127/9, extent Ac.0.38 cents;R.S.No.115/1, extent Ac.0.72 cents; R.S.No.127/10, extent Ac.0.14 cents;R.S.No.115/2, extent Ac.12.65 cents; and R.S.No.114/5, extent Ac.4.09 cents ofKunchepalli village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District, having inherited the samefrom their ancestors under Ryotwari patta granted on 28.2.1967 by the AdditionalSettlement Officer, Nellore. The grievance of the petitioners is that they made arepresentation, dated 21.12.2004 before the 3[rd] respondent-Mandal Revenue Officerseeking to mutate their names in the revenue records and to issue pattadarpassbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands in question. But, so far no actionhas been taken. Hence, they filed the present writ petition.
Conclusion
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader forRevenue. Both counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stageitself with a direction to the 3[rd] respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to consider therepresentation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.
Since the representation of the petitioners dated 21.12.2004 is said to be pendingconsideration before the 3[rd] respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, without going intothe merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with adirection to the 3[rd] respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the same andpass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. No costs.
_______________(N.V. RAMANA, J)
Date: 30.12.2004Nsr/Tvk
..... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District.3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podili Mandal, Podili, Prakasam District.3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podili Mandal, Podili, Prakasam District.
4 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (OUT)
5 Two CD copies.