← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/31087/2015disposed of no costs

Y.Rama v. The State Of Telagana

2015-09-23Vilas V.Afzulpurkar5 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.31087 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard.

The petitioner states that she is the owner of house plots bearing Nos.11 and 15 to 17 admeasuring 977 sq. yards in Sy.No.233/20 situated at Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and she intends to purchase one more adjacent plot and accordingly, she and her husband went to the office of the 4th respondent to know the particulars of stamp duty and registration charges. However, the 4th respondent informed that the said land is an assigned land as per the list of assigned lands sent by the 2nd respondent and accordingly, stated that he cannot entertain any sale deed in respect of the said land. The petitioner states that the said land is wrongly included in the list of assigned lands by the 2nd respondent and communicated to the 4th respondent.

The petitioner asserts that the land in question is not an assigned land but without verifying the record, the 2nd respondent sent the list to the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent on 15-06-2015 requesting him to communicate actual list of assigned lands to the 4th respondent, as she states that the land in question is not an assigned land.

If the land in question is not an assigned land, the same would get automatically excluded from the list. However, the petitioner has not sought any relief for deletion of land in question from the list said to have been sent by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent.

Hence, it is open to the petitioner to make appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent seeking exclusion of her land by submitting documents before

the 2nd respondent to establish that it is not an assigned land and if any such application is made, the 2nd respondent shall examine the record and the documents of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Hence, giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the 2nd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 23-09-2015 Prv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

W.P.No.31087 of 2015

23-09-2015