Dismissed

Jammalla Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2020WP/2453/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the inaction of respondents who failed to reply to a legal notice regarding disputed land. The court held that issuing a notice is neither obligatory nor sufficient to compel a reply and the petitioner's remedy is to file an application for deletion of the property from the prohibited list.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to petitioner to submit appropriate application for deletion of property from prohibited list.

Jammalla Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.2453 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

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

¶4

“pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus - to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not disposing the petitioners legal notice dt.16.10.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and violaitve of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India.”

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he inherited the dry land of an extent of Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.359/1 situated at Katuru village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District. The said land is a patta land, but not assigned land. The land in dispute is included in prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, thereupon the petitioner issued legal notice dated 16.10.2019, but there was no response from the respondents. Hence, the inaction of the respondents is questioned in the writ petition.

¶6

If, for any reason, the land is included in the prohibited list, there is a separate procedure for deletion of such land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Instead of submitting application in accordance with law, the petitioner issued a legal notice and the same was not responded by the respondents.

¶7

When a legal notice was issued complaining certain irregularities, the respondents may issue suitable reply, but the inaction of the respondents cannot be questioned in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

¶9

MSM,J Wp_2453_2020

¶10

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to submit appropriate application for deletion of his property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. No costs.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶13

17.02.2020 Ksp

Jammalla Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammalla Sudhakar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boddepalli Damodar Vs the State of Ap

C. Narsimha Sarma at Narsimhaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sagiraju Viswanadha Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Govada Nireekshana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sunkara Nageswara Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Devarapalli Jaya Sree, Vs the Styate of Ap