K.Madhavi v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.39748 of 2015 BETWEEN K. Madhavi and others.

... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.12.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

No 3.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

ORDER:

Petitioner No.1 states that under Ex-Serviceman's quota the lands referred to in prayer of the writ petition were assigned to her husband late Gajula Subramanyam and that he was also issued pattadar pass books and title deed No.270531 and patta No.313. After the death of her husband on 24.02.2012, petitioner No.1 along with three sons and one daughter is stated to have decided to sell the said lands. Hence, she made an application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.307 Revenue (Assignment) Department dated 06.06.2013 before the District Collector on 17.04.2015. It is stated that the Collector had already called for a report from the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, but so far no orders are passed on the said application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Learned Government Pleader has received instructions from the Tahsildar, B.N. Kandriga Mandal, which also refers to the matter being pending with the District Collector and the report already sent to the District Collector.

3. Though the report of the Tahsildar appears to be against the petitioners, it is ultimately the District Collector, who has to take a decision in the matter. Hence, the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioners in the light of the records as well as the report of his subordinates and pass appropriate orders, preferably, within a period of six

(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 28, 2015 DSK