Pillalamarri Venugopal Rao v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Guntur, Guntur, Guntur District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Register of Approval of Ownership in Assessment Book, 1965 r/w Section 14…
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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not registering the name of the petitioner in the assessment book under Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Register of the Transfer of Ownership of Property in the the A.P. assessment book) Rules 1965 R/w Section 14 of Municipalities Act 1994 as bad arbitrary and contrary to the Acts and Rules and also offends Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel RATHNAM the Respondent No.: MR.BADETI.VENKATA The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 15928 OF 2008
ORDER:
The petitioner assails the action of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Guntur-respondent in not acting on the application filed by him for mutation of his name in the assessment book in respect of vacant land admeasuring Ac.0-53 cents situated in Survey No. 17/A of Koritipadu, Guntur, presently falling within jurisdiction of Vidyanagar, Guntur.
The petitioner claims to have purchased vacant land admeasuring Ac. 0-53 cents in Survey No. 17/A, situated at Koritipadu, Guntur in the year 1965 under registered document NO. 5392/1965. He filed declaration under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and proceeding came to be concluded vide ULC No. 1418 of 1976 dated 30-01-2008. The petitioner approached the respondent by representation, dated 22-8-2007 to incorporate his name in the Municipal record deleting the name of P. Suryanarayana who is unconnected with the property. His representation remained unattended. Hence, this writ petition.
When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent took notice.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
The relief sought in the writ petition is a direction to the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner for effecting his name in the municipal records as owner of the vacant land admeasuring Ac. 0-53 cents. His representation is said to be pending.
Operative part
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Register of Approval of Ownership in Assessment Book, 1965 r/w Section 14 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 after putting on notice to the affected parties. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 24th July, 2008. Note: C.C. in three days, B/o: KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15928 OF 2008. 24th July, 2008.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Municipalities Act, 1994 — s. 14; Urban Land Ceiling Act; Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 — s. 14.
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.