Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
G.Rangamma – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of land ownership and physical possession. (Para 2 , 10 , 22) |
| 2. arguments regarding clerical error and respondents' dismissals. (Para 6 , 8 , 20) |
| 3. court's directive for reconsideration of appeal. (Para 25) |
ORDER :
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2010 passed vide Memo No.9733/SS-1/2008-2 by the respondent No.1, Principal Secretary to Government, wherein and whereby dismissed the appeal preferred by the father of the petitioner against the order dated 28.01.2008 vide Lr.No.A3/338/2004, passed by the Director, Survey and Land Records, in the present writ petition.
3. While so, after conducting survey, the respondents No.2 and 3 instead of issuing orders for rectifying the clerical error, kept the matter pending for four years and the respondent No.3 issued the Memo dated 28.01.2008 contending that the error cannot be treated as clerical and it is not a fit case to be entertained under Section 87 of The A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F since it is filed after a lapse of Fifty years. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 himself requested the respondent No.2 under Lr.No.A3/338/2004 dated 23.09.2005 as the error is a c
Request for correction of clerical errors in land records can be entertained regardless of a delay, as per the circular issued by the authorities.
Point of law: Advising the petitioner to settle the dispute in civil court, as it is a title dispute by the third respondent issuing the impugned proceedings is failure to discharge public duty by th....
The court clarified that revisions against orders of the Assistant Record Officer must be filed before the Record Officer, not the Commissioner, as per the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court clarified that applications for correction of consolidation schemes must be filed within a reasonable time, typically three years, and that significant delays render such applications inval....
The SSRD's factual findings on land measurement are conclusive and not subject to judicial review under Article 226 if no prejudice is shown.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
