Rondla Ramakrishna Reddy v. The Municipality, Siricilla
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 05 Feb 2008
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the petitioner :
Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri P. Radhakrishna SC for the Municipality THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2020 of 2008
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in entertaining the application of respondent No.2 for cancellation of mutation made in favour of the petitioner in respect of house bearing Nos.6-4-98, 6-4-99 and 6-4- 100 situated at Vidyanagar, Siricilla, Karimnagar District, as without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1, who mutated the name of the petitioner vide proceedings dated
14.05.2007, entertained the application of respondent No.2 and issued notice dated 22.01.2008 calling upon him to show cause why the earlier order of mutation shall not be cancelled. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the dispute raised in this writ petition at this stage need not be gone into for the reason that on the petitioner’s own admission he made a detailed representation on 28.01.2008 in response to notice dated 24.01.2008 issued by respondent No.1. In my view, no cause of action has arisen at this juncture for the petitioner to approach this Court. The petitioner is free to raise all the legally sustainable objections before respondent No.1 including the one relating to the alleged lack of jurisdiction in him to cancel the mutation proceedings. In the event respondent No.1 passes an order adverse to his interest, petitioner shall be free to avail the appropriate remedy to question such an order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2573 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.02.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o. ES
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Feb 2008. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
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.