IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22755 of 2014 BETWEEN T.Illaiah AND ... PETITIONER The Tahsildar, Raghunathapally Mandal, Warangal District and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is only aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in considering the petitioner’s application for grant of pattadar passbooks with respect to lands in Survey Nos.173 and 179 admeasuring Ac.15-25 guntas and Ac.15-31 guntas respectively, at Posirena Board (Hills) of Govardhanagiri Village, Raghunathapally Mandal, Warangal District. Petitioner claims that he made the application and had paid the requisite fee through mee seva and a copy of the transaction under mee seva for mutation and pattadar passbook, dated 22.02.2014, is produced. The receipt also shows that Rs.135/- was paid by the petitioner towards fee. However, the application under Form 6A is not produced along with the writ petition, but a representation of the petitioner, dated 24.03.2014, addressed to the Tahsildar, is enclosed.
3. Learned Government Pleader, who is unable to get instructions, submits that if appropriate application is filed by the petitioner in terms of Form 6A read with Rules 18 and 19 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, the Tahsidlar, respondent No.1, shall consider the same, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders.
4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner on the basis of mee seva transaction as referred to above. If for any reason, petitioner’s Form 6A application is not found on record, petitioner is also granted liberty to make a fresh application under Form 6A and the said application together with mee seva transaction, referred to above, shall be considered by respondent No.1 as a valid application and he shall then process the said application, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 22, 2014 LMV