Disposed

Nune Alluri Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Aug 2021WP/7091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking deletion of land from the Prohibited Properties List. Acknowledging admissions by the respondent regarding pending deletion proposals, the Court directed authorities to complete the process within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to complete the process of deleting the impugned land from the Prohibited Properties List within eight weeks.

Nune Alluri Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON No. 7091 of 2021

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus for the following relief:

¶5

“to declare the action of the Respondents in including the lands of the 1^st Petitioner of an extent of Ac.11.98 Cents in Sy.Nos.12/B2 103/1A and 13/1 and an extent of Ac.0.97 Cents in Sy.Nos.13 13/1 and 12/B2 of the 2^nd petitioner and an extent of Ac.1.04 ½ Cents in Sy.Nos.12/B2 13 and 13/1 of the 3^rd petitioner situated in Thokapalli Village Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, in the Prohibited Properties List prepared and maintained by the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assn-I) Department Dated 16.11.2018 and consequently, direct the Respondents to delete the lands of an extent of Ac.11.98 Cents in Sy.Nos.12/B2 103/1A and 13/1 of the 1^st petitioner an extent of Ac.0.97 Cents in Sy.Nos.13 13/1 and 12/B2 of the 2^nd petitioner and an extent of Ac.1.04 percentage Cents in Sy.Nos.12/B2 13 and 13/1 of the 3rd petitioner situated in Thokapalli Village Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, from the List of the Prohibited Properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 prepared and maintained by the Respondent Nos,3 to 7 forthwith.”

¶6

The petitioners purchased the subject land under registered sale deeds and they are cultivating the same by raising crop. The said land is zeroyathi land. Their names were mutated in all revenue records. The land was assigned to the petitioners in the year 1911. However, basing on the entries in RSR, the revenue authorities vide G.O.Ms.No.198 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, have included the subject land in the prohibited property list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. It is stated that at the time of their purchase, the subject land is not in the prohibited property list.

¶7

¶8

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the application of the petitioners submitted for deletion of the subject property in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act keeping in view of the G.O.Ms.No.575, dated 16.11.2018.

¶9

The 5^th respondent filed counter with the specific allegations. It is appropriate to refer to para-13 of the counter affidavit and it reads as under:

¶10

“13. In reply to Para No.6 of the affidavit, it is submitted that action was already been initiated by the 5^th respondent as per revised guidelines issued by the government for submission of revised lists of prohibited lands. Proposals for deletion of the lands claimed by the writ petitioners were also included in the said proposals. The proposals have to be approved by the Government. Hence delay. It is submitted that the respondent 5 has taken appropriate action. The contentions of the petitioners deserve no consideration.”

¶11

It is evident from the counter filed by the 5^th respondent that process has already been started and takes some more time for de-notification of the land from the prohibited list. In view of the admissions in para-13 of the counter affidavit, no further adjudication of the matter is required. However, the respondent authorities are directed to complete the entire process within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶12

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

17.08.2021 Mjl/*

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

WRIT PETITON No. 7091 of 2021

¶18

17.08.2021

¶19

Mjl/*

Nune Alluri Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nune Alluri Reddy, v. 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

Kanakarajulu Naidu, Vs Sri B.Rajasekhar,Ias.

M.Radha Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Velivela Sarojini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nakka Pothanachari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Venkataraja Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Yerraju Appala Rathnam Vs STate of Andhra Pradesh