Telangana High Court
WP/26903/2006 of Vanka Desamma W/o Raghuramaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 27 December 2006
V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26903 of 2006 Dated:27.12.2006 Between: Vanka Desamma. …Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer and another. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26903 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26903 of 2006
Dated:27.12.2006
Between:
Vanka Desamma.
and
…Petitioner
The Revenue Divisional Officer and another.
…Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26903 of 2006
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 petitioner filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved byinaction of the second respondent in disposing of the matter remandedby the first respondent by proceedings dated 21.01.2006.
The petitioner herein filed an appeal before the first respondentaggrieved by issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour ofone K.Vijayasarathi, S/o.Chandra Sekhara Pillai (not a party to the WritPetition). The first respondent disposed of the appeal on 21.01.2006and remitted the matter to the second respondent for conducting freshenquiry in the matter. The petitioner alleges that even after lapse ofabout eleven months, the second respondent failed to conduct enquiry.
At the stage of admission itself, the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (General-A) was directed to getinstructions. After getting instructions, the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader submits that the second respondent hasconducted enquiry and passed orders vide proceedingsNo.Roc/A/603/2004, dated 18.09.2006. He has also placed a Xeroxcopy of the order/proceedings passed by the second respondent,which was received by Fax today. The same is made part of therecord, and the Writ Petition is dismissed as misconceived. No costs.
27.12.2006vs
____________(V.V.S.RAO, J)