Telangana High Court
WP/34511/2011 of Shaik Shafiullah Vs The Revenue Divisional OFficer, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.34511 of 2011 Date: 29.12.2011 Between: Shaik Shafiullah …. Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa and another. …. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34511 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri L.J. Veera
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.
Conclusion
WRIT PETITION No.34511 of 2011
Date: 29.12.2011
Between:Shaik Shafiullah…. PetitionerAndThe Revenue Divisional Officer,Kadapa and another .…. Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
Writ Petition No.34511 of 2011
ORDER:
Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader forRevenue appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the shortrelief sought for in the writ petition as well as at the hearing todirect the 1[st] respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by thepetitioner within a time frame, this writ petition is disposed of atthe admission stage with the consent of both the counsel.
2. The petitioner suffered an order of resumption of landvide proceedings Ref.No.B/386-12/2006, dated 28.1.2007 of the2[nd] respondent-Tahsildar, Rayachoti, Kadapa District, issuedunder the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfers) Rules, 1977. The petitioner availed the alternativeremedy by filing an appeal against the said order before the 1[st]respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. The 1[st]respondent has taken the said appeal on file and by order dated30.8.2010 issued the notice of hearing. The grievance of thepetitioner is that even though considerable time has elapsedeversince then, the 1[st] respondent has not chosen to consider thesame. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct the 1[st] respondent to consider and dispose of the said appealwithin a time frame.
3. Indisputably, the petitioner has filed an appeal andconsiderable time has elapsed eversince then. In matters of thisnature, the Statutory authorities are expected to pass orders withina reasonable time frame.
4. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion onthe merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the1[st] respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner andpass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as tocosts.
5. In view of disposal of the writ petition,W.P.M.P.No.42949 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary.
________________________
JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
29.12.2011.Msr
WRIT PETITION No.34511 of 2011