Jamalla Penchalamma v. The District Collector

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16950 of 2011 ORDER:

The present writ petition has been filed questioning the inaction of the respondent No.3 in passing orders on the representation dated 21-02-2011 made before him for cancelling the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.4 and consequently, to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner's son by name Jamalla Satyanarayana @ Satish basing on the settlement deed dated 20-11-2010.

The facts, which lead to filing of writ petition are as under: The writ petitioner is the owner and possessor of an agricultural land in survey No.778 admeasuring Ac.01-015 cents, Ac.01-26 cents in survey No.779, Ac.0-76 cents in 777-P, Ac.01-16 cents in survey No.780, Ac.0-93 1⁄2 cents in Survey No.881-3P, Ac.0-42 cents in survey No.885-D2 and Ac.0-28 cents in survey No.886-2 in total holding land to an extent of Ac.05-96 1⁄2 cents. She claims to be paying cist to the said land. It is further averred that when she fell sick, her daughter who is respondent No.4, on the pretext of doing service by way of looking after her, visited her house and obtained her thumb impression and signatures on some blank papers. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.

4 used those blank papers and got executed a registered settlement deed in her favour by transferring the house and agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-96 1⁄2 cents vide document No.3033/2009, dated 26-08-2009. Basing on the same, the respondent No.4 also obtained pattadar passbooks in her favour.

settlement deed. Further, the petitioner made an application to respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.4 and consequently to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of her son basing on the Settlement Revocation Deed. On that, the respondent No.3 issued notice to respondent No.4, but she did not attend or respond to the said notice. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 have not acted upon the representation made by the writ petitioner till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly submits that though notice was issued to respondent No.4, till date she did not enter her appearance and the respondents are intentionally delaying the disposal of the representation made by the writ petitioner. Without going into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to dispose of the application made by the writ petitioner on 21-02-2011 in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 01-07-2015 Nvl