Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Guidance

(Querist) 16 June 2017 This query is : Resolved 
Dear Experts

This is general question. Can you please guide your view in the following issue.

I grandfather applied for land title for a forest land 5 decades back by submitting najarana receipts issued by jamidars (landlords) at that time and taxes paid to local authorities.

After a long proceedings in High Court, judgement came in our favour in 2003.

But either RDO or MRO not initiated further action till date whether to file revision petition in HC on the judgement or by issuing title deeds in our favour yet.

Here my doubts is after HC final verdict, can the said authorities set aside the file without initiating any proper action.

How to handle this. Requesting your valuable views.

Please guide.

Kind regards

VGP
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 16 June 2017
There must be killos of papers in the file.

Nothing can be advised without knowing full case details / material facts/ related documents / full case file, nothing can be advised. Discuss with your lawyer.
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 17 June 2017
Discuss with your lawyer or some other lawyer (if dissatisfied with your lawyer) with full case file.
rajeev sharma (Expert) 17 June 2017
Nothing may be advised till one go through the judgement passed by high Court. Please contact the lawyer who contested your case in High Court since he knows all the facts .
P Venu Gopal (Querist) 14 August 2017
Dear Sirs

The judgement just contain one page and below is the extract. Please guide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between :

1. Mr. PGK
2. Mr. YMRAO petitioners

And

1. Government of AP – Principle Secretary (Revenue)
2. The commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records
3. The Mandal Revenue officer
4. Mr. KJR respondents

(R4 impleaded as per court dated DD.MM.YYYY in WPMP 0000/00)

Petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the high court will be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in the GO MS No. 000, revenue (JA) department, dated DD.MM.YYYY and quash the same as being illegal and without jurisdiction and restore the orders of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, dated DD.MM.YYYY granting ryotwari pattas to the petitioners.

For the petitioners : Mr. MDP, Advocate
For the respondents 1 to 3 : The GP for Revenue
For the respondent 4 : MR. RNR, Advocate

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning GO MS No. 000 Revenue (JA) Department dated DD.MM.YYYY passed by the 01st respondent – government exercising the revisional powers and setting aside the patta granted by the commissioner of survey, settlement and land records, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, under section 11(a) of the AP (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition (conversion into ryotwari) Act 1948 (for Short , the Act)

According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent herein passed orders granting pattas in their favour in a revision filed under section 7 of the act. According to them, no further revision lies to the government under the act. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the order passed by the government under the purported exercise of revisional power revising the order of the 2nd respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the court a decision of this court in Mr. XXX and another Vs government of AP, WP No. 00000 of 0000 dated DD.MM.YYYY, wherein this court held that no further revision lies against the order of the commissioner of survey, settlements, the 2nd respondent herein. Following the said decision, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned GO MS No. 000 revenue (JA) department dated DD.MM.YYYY passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. However, this order shall not preclude the government, if they are so advised, to take appropriate remedial action against the orders of the 2nd respondent.

That rule nisi has been made absolute as above.

Winess the honourable Mr. DDDD, the chief justice on this xxxday, the DDth day of MM YYYY.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :