Telangana High Court
WP/26932/2006 of Kandimalla Harinadha Babu, Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26932 of 2006 Dated: 27.12.2006 Between: Kandimalla Harinadha Babuand another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Prakasam District and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.26932 of 2006 ORDER: The
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26932 of 2006Dated: 27.12.2006
Between:Kandimalla Harinadha Babuand another.ANDThe District Collector, Prakasam District and others.
..... PETITIONERS
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26932 of 2006
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 two petitioners claim to be the owners of land admeasuringAcs.20.19 cents in survey Nos.233 to 241 situated at Kondayapalem,Hamlet of Ballikurava Village and Mandal in Prakasad District. Theyclaim to have succeeded to the property from their ancestors. It appearsthat there is granite to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents in survey No.234. Onan application made by respondent No.4 for grant of quarry lease overan extent of one hectare in survey Nos.230/B(part), 230/C5 and 234,respondent No.3, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO)conducted enquiry and issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ by letter dated18.08.2006 in favour of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitioners statedly preferred a revision petition before respondent No.1,namely, the District Collector. They also sought for stay of all furtherproceedings pursuant to the letter of MRO dated 18.08.2006. It is theirgrievance that respondent No.1 did not pass any orders on the staypetition or in the main revision petition. In this writ petition, they seekappropriate direction to respondent No.1.
There is no dispute that yet now the matter is still pending beforerespondent No.1. Therefore, it would be in the interests of thepetitioners as well as respondent No.4 to dispose of the revisionpetition. Accordingly there shall be a direction to respondent No.1 topass orders on the revision petition submitted by the petitioners againstthe orders of MRO in R.Dis.170/2006 dated 18.08.2006 within a periodof ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition, with the above observations and direction, isaccordingly disposed of. No costs.
_____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
27[th] December, 2006Note:Issue CC by 28.12.2006B/oghnNote:Issue CC by 28.12.2006B/oghn