Disposed

Sri Chekuri Venkata Radhakrishna v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2020WP/1017/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner exhausted the statutory remedy via Section 4-A appeal under the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977. Consequently, a stay on dispossession was directed until the appeal time expired, and the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to prefer section 4-A appeal; stay on dispossession till expiry of appeal time; writ petition disposed of.

Sri Chekuri Venkata Radhakrishna Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.1017 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶4

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.A/494/2019, dated 30.10.2019 without any record, directing to take possession of petitioner’s Agriculture land admeasuring Ac.01.55 cents of Sy.No.11/1, situated at Jangamgudem Village, Nuziveedu Mandal, Krishna District as highly illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice contrary to the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the same.”

¶5

The fourth respondent/Tahsildar passed the resumption order under Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 (for short ‘Act’). Statutory appeal is available under Section 4-A of the Act. But, without filing a statutory appeal permissible under the Act, the petitioner approached this Court, which is impermissible, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in “ Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another¹ ” . On this ground alone, writ petition cannot be maintained. However, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under Section 4-A of the Act. In view of the law declared by this Court in “ Rahmatullah Khan and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors² ”, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner in pursuance of the resumption order, till expiry of the appeal time.

¶6

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

¶7