Telangana High Court
WP/40633/2014 of Koonakamedala Subramanyam Rao Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 40633 OF 2014 ORDER: The petitioners herein seek a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the action of the fourth respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District, in issuing orders on 04.01.2014, dismissing the claim
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAOWRIT PETITION NO. 40633 OF 2014
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 herein seek a Writ of Mandamus for declaringthe action of the fourth respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer,Mancherial, Adilabad District, in issuing orders on 04.01.2014,dismissing the claim of the petitioners for grant of Occupancy RightCertificate in respect of the land in question, as bad in law.
It is apt to notice that the two petitioners herein are petitionernos.3 & 4 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad.There are in all six petitioners in that case. It is, therefore, clear thatthey are aware of the necessary proceedings, inasmuch as, they haveinitiated the proceedings by themselves. In fact, they were representedby Sri G. Kota Mallaiah, Advocate. Therefore, the explanation offeredby the petitioners herein that they are not in the know of the orderspassed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial on 04.01.2014is not plainly believable.
For the reason that the petitioners herein have not taken anysteps by preferring the appeal against the orders passed by theRevenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, this writ petition cannot beentertained. It is further made clear that controversies relating topossession of land are essentially factual controversies. It will be bestresolved before the fact finding authorities. Under Article 226, onlyjudicial review exercise can be carried out. Therefore, the petitionersought to have exhausted the appeal remedy available to them beforeasking judicial review of the orders passed by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Mancherial, Adilabad District.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending shall alsostand dismissed. No costs.
It goes without saying that the petitioners are at liberty to availthe alternative remedy against the orders passed by the RevenueDivisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad on 04.01.2014.
30[th] December, 2014sp
________________________________
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J