District v. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Peddapalli, Karimnagar District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jun 2004
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Provision of The AP.(T.A) Tenancy Act
- A.P.L.R (COAH) Act, 1973 s. 8(1)
- A.P.L.R. Act, 1973 s. 19(1)
- A.P.(T.A) Tenancy Act, 1950 s. 32
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to Directing the respondent to consider and dispose off the Represenation dt. 2/02/2004, within two weeks from today and consequently declare the inaction of the Respondent in taking action in pursuance represenation dt. 2/02/2004 as being violative of Provision of The AP.(T.A) Tenancy Act. 1950 . For the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY - ADVOCATES For the Respondents.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the Following :
ORDER:
Operative part
The present writ petition seeking a direction respondents to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 2-2-2004. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that father of the petitioner was the protected tenant in Survey No.947 of Raghavpur village, Peddapalli Mandal and cultivating the said land. That the land-lords Erabati Laxminarasimha Rao and others filed declaration under section 8(1) of the A.P.L.R (COAH) Act , 1973 before the Tribunal Land Reforms, Karimnagar, wherein the Tribunal passed judgment dated 3-2-1983 holding that the landlords are holding excess of ceiling limits and directed them to surrender the excess land under section 19 (1) of the A.P.L.R.Act, 1973. Thereafter all the protected tenants had approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for issuance of certificates under Section 38 E of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, however, the said request was rejected vide proceedings dated 1-9-2003. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation on 2-2-2004 to the respondents requesting to conduct enquiry under section 32 of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy Act 1950 and to issue certificates under Section 38 E of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action is taken on the representation dated 2-2-2004 and the same is still remains unanswered. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Both the counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 2-2-2004 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously. No costs. ___________ N.V.RAMANA,J 28-6-2004 TVK/DA To 1 The District Collector Karimnagar District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Peddapalli, Karimnagar District 3.2CCs to 4.2CD copies Form-NIC-O GS/WP{GR}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Provision of The AP.(T.A) Tenancy Act; A.P.L.R (COAH) Act, 1973 — s. 8(1); A.P.L.R. Act, 1973 — s. 19(1); A.P.(T.A) Tenancy Act, 1950 — s. 32.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Jun 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.