P.Ravindranath Reddy, 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. 21711 of 2015 BETWEEN P.Ravindranath Reddy and others ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 28.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:- Heard.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the land, in question, from one Pasupuleti Munaiah under registered sale deed and the said Munaiah was issued pattadar passbook only in respect of part of the land but not for the balance extents. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application before the fourth respondent as prescribed in Form VI seeking mutation and for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. However, the fourth respondent had refused to consider the said request of the petitioners without assigning any reasons. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition with regard to non-consideration of their representation made before the fourth respondent dated 17.07.2014.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on instructions, states that the subject property belongs to Sri Moksha Ramalingeswara Swamy temple.

4. In my opinion, petitioners' application need be considered by the fourth respondent and he has to communicate his decision to the petitioners either accepting or rejecting their request with reasons in support of the said order so that petitioners can take appropriate further course of action.

5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider petitioners' aforesaid representation and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 28, 2015 LMV