Dismissed

Jorige Hima Bindu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2019WP/17314/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the inclusion of her private landed property in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and sought a direction to delete the same. The High Court, while not adjudicating the merits of the inclusion, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's online application on me

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's online application dated 06.08.2019 and pass an order on merits within six weeks.

Jorige Hima Bindu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17314 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The writ petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus , declaring the action of respondents in including her private landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.85 cents in Survey No.1018/3P (old Survey No.1018/1) and an extent of Ac.1.15 cents in Survey No.1014/4 of Nuzvid Revenue Village & Mandal, Krishna District, in prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and inaction on the part of the respondents on the petitioner’s online mee-seva application dated 06.08.2019 submitted to delete the said land from the list of prohibited properties for registration, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential direction.

¶5

Learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration takes notice on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice on behalf of the respondents Nos.5 and 6 and the latter on the written instructions, would submit that as per the FLR, the land in R.S.No.1014/4 in an extent of Ac.1.15 cents is recorded as ‘ Gayalu’ , whereas the land in R.S.No.1018 in an extent of Ac.8.00 cents is recorded as ‘ Gayalu Bodigattu ’ and in that view of the matter, the petitioner’s request could not be acceded.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that let the authorities pass an order and furnish the same to the petitioner, so as to enable her to take legal course available to her.

¶7

Having regard to the above submission of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the application dated 06.08.2019 of the petitioner and pass appropriate order on merits and communicate to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶8

¶9

order and, so as to enable her to take legal course of action available to her.

¶10

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶12

closed.

¶13

_________________________ JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶14

12^th November, 2019 pvd

Jorige Hima Bindu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jorige Hima Bindu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Srinivasulu, Kurnool Dist and 3 Others Vs v.C., and M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd and Ano

Chittoor Sukumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guggilam Bala Subrahmanyam Guptha, Vs State of Ap

Kasina Veera Bhadra Rama Prasad Vs Rudraraju Rajesh Varma

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Haseen, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh