Disposed

V.Koteswararao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2020WP/16308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the change of ownership name and mutation of a property without due process. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to act on a detailed representation submitted by the petitioner within a fixed timeline.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a detailed representation; respondents to dispose of it with a reasoned order within four weeks.

V.Koteswararao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16308 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Questioning the action of the respondents 3 & 4 in changing the name of ownership in respect of property in D.No.9-11-144/A, Nissankararao vari street, Kothapet, Guntur, with the name of unofficial respondent No.6, without following due process of law, the present writ petition is filed.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that his father got the property bearing D.No.9-11-144/A, Nissankararao vari Street, Kothapet, through a family partition vide partition deed bearing document No.15729 of 2006. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the property devolved on the petitioner and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 & 4, in collusion with the sixth respondent, changed the name of ownership in respect of the property and mutated the name of the sixth respondent, without following due process of law and the respondents 2 & 3 are trying to disconnect the electricity connection to the premises.

¶8

¶9

Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 submits that the 6^th respondent submitted online application for mutation of her name and accordingly her name is mutated and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can make a representation to the authorities ventilating his grievance and the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents 3 & 4 ventilating his grievance, with necessary documents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioner submitting such representation(s), the respondents 3 & 4 are directed to dispose of the said representation(s) as per law and pass reasoned order(s), as expeditiously as possible, and not later than a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation(s), and communicate the decision(s) taken to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶13

03.11.2020 Note: Issue CC in two days. B/o Vjl

V.Koteswararao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Koteswararao v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Muneer Vs the State of Ap

Mandipalli Ramprasad Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.Chandra Sekhara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Atmakuri Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Praveen Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.M. Ameeruddin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh