Telangana High Court
WP/26036/2006 of Ichrah bai Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East Division) on 27 December 2006
V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26036 of 2006 Dated:27.12.2006 Between: Ichrah Bai, and others. …Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer and others. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26036 of 2006 ORDER: The four petitioners are allegedly owners
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26036 of 2006
Dated:27.12.2006
Between:
Ichrah Bai, and others.
and
…Petitioner
The Revenue Divisional Officer and others.
…Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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:
WRIT PETITION No.26036 of 2006
The four petitioners are allegedly owners of land admeasuringAcs.54.36 guntas in Survey Nos.293 to 295 situated at Ravalkole Village ofMedchal Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. They allege that they purchasedthe same under registered sale deed dated 12.09.1990. The father ofrespondents 3 to 6 and the second respondent got entries in their favour inthe pahanies for the years 1989-1990 to 1994-1995. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the first respondent, beingAppeal No.A2/73/2001. It is the case of the petitioners that though theappeal was heard and orders were reserved on 21.04.2004, the firstrespondent did not pronounce any orders. They seek a direction to theappellate authority to pass orders in the appeal.
After getting instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleaderfor Revenue (General-T) submits that the then Revenue Divisional Officerreserved the matter on 21.04.2004, and subsequently, as per the notings inthe note file, on 24.07.2004, orders were pronounced. He fairly submits thatthe copy of the order passed by the first respondent, however, is not found inthe current file.
When any order is passed by a quasi judicial authority, mereendorsement/noting in the note file does not amount to passing order. There should be separate order duly signed by the competent authority. Now that it is admitted that no such order is found in the file, the firstrespondent may reopen the matter now, give notice to respondents 2 to 8,and pass a fresh order, if necessary by giving another opportunity to thepetitioners and the contesting respondents. In case respondents 2 to 8produce a copy of the order earlier passed by the first respondent, necessary enquiry shall be made into the same. If the order is not passed,the first respondent shall now pass orders within a period of ten days fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
27.12.2006Note: Issue C.C in one week.
B/o. vs
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)