Disposed

K. Venkata Krishnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Aug 2021WP/16574/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to quash the 2nd respondent's inaction in disposing of a revision petition, but the petition later aimed to direct the restoration of the petitioner's name in revenue records. The court, citing the Apex Court judgment in Government of India v. P.Venkatesh, held that deciding the merits

What did the court decide?

Direct direction issued to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Revision Petition No.3040 of 2017 within eight weeks in accordance with law.

K. Venkata Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.16574 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“……to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2^nd respondent in not disposing the Revision Petition No.3040 of 2017 filed by the un-official respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to restore the names of petitioner by deleting the name of un-official respondent in the revenue records, 1-B and Adangal in respect of Sy.No.766/4 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated at B.K.Samudram Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District....”

¶7

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners limited his request to direct the Joint Collector/ 2^nd respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition No.3040 of 2017 filed by the un-official respondent, without touching the merits of the case.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents readily agreed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the un-official respondent, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities.

¶9

In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “ The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ ”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of

¶10

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶11

¶12

cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the revision petition pending before him, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.

¶13

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition No.3040 of 2017, which is pending with him, in accordance with law, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 10.08.2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.16574 OF 2021

¶21

Date: 10.08.2021

¶22

K. Venkata Krishnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Venkata Krishnaiah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. S.V. Rukminamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vangala Seetharami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chiranjeevi Satya Varma Vs Adnan Nayeem Asmi

Smt. B. Jayasudha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B Eswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Timmisetti Subrahmanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh