Dismissed

Malla Someswar Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Aug 2021WP/17464/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the inaction of revenue authorities in mutating land records. It held that since the petitioners failed to submit an application via Mee Seva as required by G.O.Ms. No.209 dated 14.06.2017, the authorities were not obligated to act. The petition was disposed of with liberty to apply correctly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate application through Mee Seva/online complying with G.O.Ms. No.209 dated 14.06.2017 and Rule 5(3).

Malla Someswar Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.17464 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of respondents in considering the representation dated 03.01.2020 for incorporating/mutating their names in Web Land Portal in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in S.No.4/2; Ac.1.50 cents in S.No.4/6; Ac.1.83 cents in S.No.4/7; Ac.0.75 cents in S.No.4/9; Ac.2.00 cents in S.No.4/10 and Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.4/8 in Krishnarayapuram village, Pendurthy mandalam, Visakhapatnam district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to mutate/incorporate their names in official web land in respect of subject land forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order.”

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that, in the year 1978, father of

¶8

1^st petitioner by name late Malla Appala Naidu along with propositus of petitioners 2 to 6, namely late Polamarisetty suri Devudu; late Polamarisetti Achayamma; late Polamarisetty Babuji; late Malla Swamy and late Polamarisetty Subramanyam were granted D-Form pattaas bearing Nos.109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 for the subject land in Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. On 29.06.1990 a notification under Section 4(1) of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquiring the land in an extent of Ac.89.28 cents of private land and Ac.22.70 cents of government land for defence purpose viz., wireless experimental unit at Krishnarayapuram village, Pendurthy mandal, Visakhapatnam district by the Ministry of

¶9

¶10

Defence, Government of India. The petitioners filed Civil Appeal No.7932/2012 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal along with other appeals by an order, dated 04.08.2014 confirming the order of this Court. The petitioners submitted a representation, dated 14.09.2018 requesting the respondents and other defence officials not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law. But, said representation was not considered. Therefore, the petitioners filed another W.P.No.37055 of 2018 before Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad seeking interim direction to protect the interest of petitioners over the subject property. The land of petitioners was neither acquired nor resumed. The petitioners also secured information under R.T.I Act that the subject land was acquired. It is further contended that the Defence Estate Officer addressed a letter to the 2^nd respondent/District Collector stating that the petitioners’ land is not handed over to them. Hence, the writ petition.

¶11

During hearing, Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contention whereas learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that as per terms of G.O.Ms.209 dated 14.06.2017, an application shall be made through Mee Seva by paying requisite fee, in the absence of such application, the respondents are not under obligation to mutate the name of petitioners and the inaction of the respondents cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

¶13

Admittedly, petitioners did not submit any application through Mee Seva on payment of requisite fee for mutation of the subject land, in compliance of other requirements under Rule 5(3) of rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. Therefore, the respondents are not under obligation to act upon such representation submitted by the petitioners. Hence, the inaction of the respondents cannot be declared as illegal since the petitioners did not make an appropriate application in compliance of G.O.Ms. No.209 dated 14.06.2017 and Rule 5(3) of rules made under the Act. Consequently, I find no merit in the contention of petitioners and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of while granting the liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate application through Mee Seva/online in terms of G.O.Ms.No.209 dated 14.06.2017 complying the requirements under Rule 5(3) of the rules framed under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Date: 18.08.2021 IS

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.17464 OF 2021

¶21

Date: 18.08.2021 IS

Malla Someswar Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malla Someswar Rao 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

Nakka Pothanachari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nune Alluri Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M Venkataraja Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Samireddi Govind Vs the State of Ap

Ayyagari Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rachamanti Chinta Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh