District v. Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jun 2004
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Provisions considered
Judgment
For the Petitioner: MR.P.SUDHEER REDDY , Advocate For the Respondent No1.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. the Respondent NO.2: Mr. K. Venugopal Reddy, For Advocate And S.C. for Municipal Corporation The Court Made the Following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P.NO. 10192 of 2004 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for Respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2- Municipal Corporation. The only grievance of the petitioners is that though they have made representation dated 17-2-2004 to respondent No.2- Municipal Corporation, seeking mutation and substitution of their names by transfer of registry of ownership of the properties in question in the assessment books, neither mutation has been effected nor any orders thereon have been passed. Hence, she seeks appropriate directions to the respondents. Inasmuch as the representation dated 17-2-2004 of the petitioners, is stated to be still pending before Respondent No.2, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation, said to have been made by the petitioners on 17-2- 2004, seeking mutation and substitution of their names by transfer of Registry of ownership of the properties in question in the assessment books, expeditiously, provided the same is accompanied by requisite fee and materials. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Sd/- XXX ASST. REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal, Warangal District 2.2CD copies to the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development,
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; IV of the A.P. Municipality Act, 1965; III of the Act; A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 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.