R/. Pasumamula Villge, Hayatnagar v. Rangareddy District
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C V RAMULU
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
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 pass order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in issuing the Passbooks and Title deeds in Sy.No. 444 admeasuring Ac. 5-00 situated at Pasumamula Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provision of ROR Act. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.D.JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14230 OF 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in issuing Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed against survey No.444 admeasuring Ac.5-00 situated at Pasumamula village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been assigned with the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in survey No.444 of Pasumamula village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the patta certificate was also issued. However, when he applied for issuance of pattadar pass book the same was denied. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that today the learned Government Pleader has handed over Pattadar Pass Book and Title deed issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of land in survey No.444 to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Pasumamula village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3rd August, 2009 MD/KSH _______________ C.V. RAMULU, J
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.