Telangana High Court
WP/46107/2016 of Mummaneni Vijay Kumar S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2016
SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.46107 OF 2016 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Since this
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
2. Since this Court is not going into the merits of the case, it may not be necessary to issue notice to the 5[th] respondent.
3. The present Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:
“…to issue order, direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking action on the report submitted by the 4[th] respondent in RC.No.16/2015(A), dated:05.07.2016 in which he recommended for cancellation of pattedar passbook issued in favour of 5[th] respondent in respect of the land covered in RS No.84/1 an extent of Ac.8.51 Cts situated at Darbhagudem Village, Jeelugumili Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land pattedar passbook Act 1974 and consequentially direct the 3[rd] respondent to take necessary action on the report submitted by the 4[th] respondent in ROC No.16/2015(A), dated 05.07.2016.”
4. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the 3[rd] respondent- RDO to take appropriate action basing on the letter written by the 4[th] respondent-Tahsildar, at the earliest.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that he has no objection for the same provided no action has been taken till date.
6. Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3[rd] respondent-RDO to take appropriate action on the letter dated 05.07.2016 said to have been written by the 4[th ]respondent -Tahsildar in ROC No.16/2015(A), in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that RDO shall hear the petitioner and also the aggrieved persons, if any, before passing any order.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Date:29.12.2016 INL
_______________________
JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR