Noorbasha Farid Saheb, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.36683 OF 2016 ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner seeking to declare the inaction of the 4th respondent in disposing of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.06.2016 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TG) for respondents. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the representation dated 28.06.2016 made by the petitioner seeking to incorporate his name in on-line Mee-Bhoomi web land revenue records. In Thriuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector1 this Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction for correction of entries made beyond one year without there being an appeal on merits. Further, in G.Prabhakar v. State of Telangana2 this Court held that an application for correction made beyond one year shall be entertained only by the District Collector in exercise of revisional powers.

That being the position, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Tahasildar-4th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.06.2016 in terms of the 1 2009 (1) ALD 248 2 2015 (4) ALD 427

ratio laid down by this Court in the judgments referred supra and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner and other aggrieved persons, if any, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 28.10.2016 sur