Smt S.B. Pramila Devi v. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 26.11.2019 Between:

Smt. S.B.Pramila Devi w/o. late Prathapram, Aged about 84 years, occu: House-wife, r/o. Plot No.20, H.No.30-272/1A/1, Near Park, Santhoshima Nagar Colony Old, Safilguda, Hyderabad, rep.by General Power of Attorney Sri Ramachandra Murthy, s/o.late Narasimha Chary, Aged about 64 yrs, occu: Retd.Bank Emplioyee, r/o. Plot No.20, H.No.30-272/1A/1, Near park, Santhoshima Nagar Colony Old, Safilguda, Hyderabad.

.....Petitioner and The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

According to the petitioner, her husband was the Ex-serviceman. He was assigned land to an extent of Acs.5.05 guntas in Sy.No.208/2 of Raameshwarpally shivar in the year 1969. Petitioner claims that her husband was in possession and enjoyment and was cultivating the land. He engaged some labourers to help in the cultivation. According to the petitioner, her husband name was reflected in the revenue records upto the year 2016-17. The assignment proceedings were also implemented in Jama Bandi and pattadar pass books were also issued. The husband of the petitioner died on 26.09.2010. On 25.09.2017, petitioner submitted application to the Tahsildar to record her name in the revenue records instead of her husband and to issue pattadar pass books. It appears petitioner also submitted application to the District Collector on 10.10.2017.

In response, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar, Kamareddy to look into the grievance of petitioner and also directed to submit a report thereon. On 17.11.2017 the Tahsildar submitted his report to the District Collector. This Writ Petition is filed alleging that copy of the said report is furnished to the petitioner and petitioner is informed that whatever is contained in the report is the decision of the Tahsildar.

2.

As briefly noted above, the genesis for the Tahsildar to give report is the application/complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Collector and the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to send report. In other words, the Tahsildar has not

taken a decision as required by law on the application filed by the petitioner, but only submitted the status report to the District Collector. The report submitted by the Tahsildar to the District Collector, even assuming that the copy was furnished to the petitioner, does not give rise to cause of action as no formal decision is taken by the Tahsildar against the grievance of petitioner. Thus, at this stage, without entering into the merits of the contents of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, suffice to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Tahsidlar to pass an order on the application made by the petitioner for mutation of her name in the revenue records duly assigning reasons in support of his decision. If necessary the Tahsildar may conduct enquiry after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and to any person whose name is reflected in the records/who has an interest. The entire exercise shall be completed and decision communicated to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 26.11.2019 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 26.11.2019 kkm