Disposed

Sri.Gandla Siddappa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2021WP/1722/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to delete land from prohibited property list under the A.P. Registration Act, 1908 and direct registration of alienation. Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to submit representation to the Commissioner of Endowments for deletion within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of writ petition with liberty to submit representation to Commissioner of Endowments within two weeks for deletion from prohibited list; direction to Commissioner to decide within six weeks.

Sri.Gandla Siddappa Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1722 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶5

India seeking to following relief:

¶6

“…….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus , declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in including the land an extent of Ac.5.46 cents in Sy.No.819/1C of Gonegandla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District in the prohibited property list U/s.22(A) of the A.P. Registration Act, 1908 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to delete the land from prohibited properties list and direct the 6^th respondent to register the document of alienation to be presented by the petitioner.”

¶7

Heard, the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps for Respondents.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner Gandla Mallesappa and his younger brother Mr.Parameswarappa were granted Ryotwari patta under Inams Abolition Act, 1956 to an extent of Ac.10.46 cents in Sy.No.819/C, Ac.1.24 cents in Sy.No.819/1A and Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.819/3B of Gonedla village accounts vide Rc.No.33176, dated 28.12.1976. After partition between them G. Mallesappa who is the father of petitioner got an extent of Ac.6.80 cents. Out of the said total extent, an extent of Ac. 1.34 cents was sold by him. As such, the petitioner's father Mr.Mallesappa was the absolute owner and possessor of the Ryotwari patta land to an extent of Ac.5.46 cents of agricultural land. Since then, he was in possession and

¶9

¶10

enjoyment of the said land without any interference. After the demise of the father of the petitioner, being the only son, petitioner succeeded to the said property and mutated his name in the revenue records and he was granted Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed on 23.08.2009. The said land has been recorded as private patta land belongs to the petitioner in 1-B, register. When he wanted to alienate a portion of the land to clear his debts, he approached the Sub Register, Kodumuru for ascertaining the market value but the Sub-Registrar informed the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment issued a letter in RC.No.M1/9581/2016 stating that the land in Sy.No.819/IC belongs to Endowment Department and thereby the same is included in the prohibited property list under Sec.22A(1) of Registration Act, 1908. Assailing the arbitrary action of the respondents 2 and 3 in including the subject land in the list prohibited properties as Endowment land, this writ petition is filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 3^rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department under R.T.I. Act on 23.01.2018. The 3^rd respondent informed him that the information sought by the petitioner do not come under R.T.I. Act vide in L.Dis.No. A 1/5833/2018 Adm.wing., dated 04.10.2018. Later, the R.D.O., Kurnool cum Public Information authority, the 5^th respondent issued an endorsement in R.C.No.B/893/2018, dated 01.10.2018 that after receipt of the report from the endowment department, his problem will be solved. But all his attempts in vain.

¶12

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to delete the lands of the petitioner from prohibitory list the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶14

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner submits fresh application, the same would be considered and appropriate orders could be passed within a reasonable time.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court, in the interest of justice felt it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a liberty to submit comprehensive representation to the 2^nd respondent /Commissioner of Endowments for deletion of the petitioner’s subject property from the prohibited property list within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being submitted by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the same as per law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation submitted by the petitioner and communicate the same to the 6^th respondent/Sub Registrar, Kodumuru, Kurnool District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

M. GANGA RAO, J

05.01.2021 KLPD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITON NO.1722 of 2019

¶23

Date: 05-01-2021

¶24

KLPD

Sri.Gandla Siddappa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Gandla Siddappa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others

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

K Nagaraja Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Pasupuleti Ananda Vidya Sagar Vs State of Ap

Smt a Anasuya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bachu Venkata Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelala Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Amigo Life Sciences Private Limited Vs the State of Ap