Telangana High Court
WP/2155/2003 of Mr. Prabhakar, Vs The Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, on 28 December 2007
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2155 OF 2003 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the sons of late Sayanna. It is stated that their grandfather by name Venkaiah was the protected tenant in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.185, 188, 189 and 195 of Karmanghat village, Saroornagar,
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIWRIT PETITION No.2155 OF 2003
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.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioners claim to be the sons of late Sayanna.It is statedthat their grandfather by name Venkaiah was the protected tenant inrespect of the land in Sy.Nos.185, 188, 189 and 195 of Karmanghatvillage, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.After his death, the 2ndrespondent herein, who is the brother of Sayanna i.e., paternal uncle ofthe petitioners herein, obtained Succession Certificate in the year1962 in respect of the land in Sy.No.188 and 189, claiming falsely thatthe father of the petitioners got divided long back and that he had noclaim. The petitioners being minors were not aware of the same.However, after attaining majority the petitioners filed an applicationbefore the 1strespondent for grant of Succession Certificate.The saidapplication was dismissed by the 1strespondent.Questioning thesame, they preferred an Appeal before the Joint Collector, RangaReddy District.The Appeal was dismissed on the ground that therewas an inordinate delay in taking steps.The petitioners preferred afurther Appeal before the Board of Revenue.In the meantime, acompromise was effected between the petitioners and the 2ndrespondent, and consequently the Appeal before the Board ofRevenue was not pressed.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed O.S.No.382 of 1991 on thefile of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,seeking partition in respect of Ac.2.02 gts of land situated in Sy.No.195of Karmanghat village. The said suit was dismissed on 2.8.2001holding that the petitioners cannot claim any right in respect of the suitland unless and until their right to succession is recognized.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred A.S.No.2149 of 2001,which was dismissed by this Court upholding the order of the learned trial Judge.However, the petitioners were granted liberty to approachthe authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancyand Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”) seekingappropriate relief. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a petition beforethe1strespondent under Section 40 of the Act seekingissuance of Succession Certificate.The petitioners also filed anapplication for injunction restraining the 2ndrespondent herein as wellas respondent Nos.3 to 10, in whose favour the land was transferredby the 2ndrespondent, from changing the nature of the land inquestion.
It is claimed by the petitioners that as a matter of fact, the 1strespondent granted interim direction on 27.1.2003; however, the samewas kept in abeyance in view of the interim orderdated30.1.2003 granted by this Court in W.P.No.1796 of 2003 staying allfurther proceedings before the 1strespondent.
It is alleged that taking advantage of the above situation, therespondents 3 to 10 started constructions on the land in question andin spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners, the respondents1 and 2 failed to take any action.Hence, this writ petition seeking adeclaration that the action of the 1strespondent in not taking steps toprevent the alleged illegal constructions by the respondents 3 to 10 inSy.No.195 of Karmanghat village, as arbitrary and illegal.
-Despite notice, no counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf ofrespondents.Though appearance has been entered on behalf ofrespondent Nos. 2 to 6, they did not choose to file any counter.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties andperused the material on record.
It is relevant to note that during the pendency of this writ petition,W.P.No.1796 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.8.2003. Thus,the interim stay granted on 30.1.2003 is no longer subsisting.
In the circumstances, it is open to the 1strespondent to consider the application of the petitioners filed under Section 40 of the Act andpass appropriate orders in accordance with law and it is not necessaryfor this Court to express any opinion on merits.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction tothe 1strespondent to hear both the parties and pass appropriate ordersin accordance with law in the proceedings pending before him in FileNo.B/12417/2003 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within aperiod of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.No costs.
Kgr.
28.12.2007.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.2155 OF 2003