IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20475 of 2014 BETWEEN Neela Prabhu Lingamurthy.
AND ... PETITIONER The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar District and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that land admeasuring Ac.0.11 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.525 of Koheda village, Koheda Mandal, Karimnagar District, belongs to him on the basis of purchase from the original owner under registered sale deed bearing document No.486/1997 dated 29.03.1997, the second respondent erroneously recorded the name of one M. Rajalingam for the entire extent of the said survey number. Consequently, petitioner had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer and under file No.N/5253/97 dated 20.05.1998, RDO found that mutation of entire land in Sy.No.525 in the name of M. Rajalingam is irregular and directed the Tahsildar to rectify the error. Alleging inaction on the part of the Tahsildar/second respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, who has secured instructions, submits that in compliance of the directions of the RDO, as above, appropriate steps are taken and the revenue record is rectified including Ac.0.11 ¼ guntas in the name of the petitioner and Ac.0.33 ¾ guntas in the name of M. Rajalingam.
4. In view of the said compliance and rectification of the revenue record, as sought for by the petitioner, it is clear that nothing further survives for adjudication in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, however, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to apply and obtain a certified copy of the duly rectified revenue record and if such an application is made, the Tahsildar/second respondent shall furnish a copy thereof to the petitioner as per law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 5, 2014 DSK