Telangana High Court
WP/28953/2009 of M.Lakshi Narayana Reddy Vs The Joint Collector and Additional Direcit Magistrate on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.28953 of 2009 Dated: 31.12.2009 Between: M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur District and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: According to the petitioner, he is eking out his
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.28953 of 2009
Dated: 31.12.2009
Between:
M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy. .. Petitioner.
And
The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur District and others. .. Respondents.
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:
According to the petitioner, he is eking out his livelihood by doingagriculture in the land admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.63-3Asituated at Gulimigundla Kottala village, Pamidi Mandal, AnantapurDistrict, but the Tahsildar, Pamidi, without considering his possessionand enjoyment over the said land, by orders dated 29.07.2005assigned the said land in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. Aggrievedthereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RevenueDivisional Officer, Anantapur, and the same was dismissed videproceedings No.D.Dis.No.D2/1488/2005, dated 16.02.2008.Challenging the same, the petitioner further preferred a RevisionPetition in R.C.No.E4/2590/2008 before the first respondent-JointCollector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur District, and thesame is pending. While that being so, on 15.07.2009, a representationwas made by the petitioner to the first respondent requesting todispose of the revision petition filed by him expeditiously. Thegrievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his representation to thefirst respondent for speedy disposal of the revision petition filed by him,so far the same has not been acted upon.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressingany opinion on merits, the first respondent is directed to dispose of theRevision Petition in RC.No.E4/2590/2008 filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 16.02.2008 of the Revenue Divisional Officer,Anantapur District, and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs.
31.12.2009v v
_____________
C.V.RAMULU,J