Disposed

Akula Sravan Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jul 2021WP/7397/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge in Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging the inclusion of petitioners' assigned land in the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The court granted liberty to file an application for deletion.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to make an application through Mee Seva for deletion/denotifying the land from the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act.

Akula Sravan Kumar 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.7397 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“ Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd Respondent in including the Lands of the Petitioners in an extent of Ac 287 Cents of land in Sy.No.489/2 A and B of Avilala Village Tirupathi Rural Mandal Chittoor District under Section 22 A of the Registration Act vide Proceedings Roc F2/4495/2013 dated 20.10.2018 as arbitrary illegal in violaiton of Article 14 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in violation of Section 3 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act 1977 and consequently direct the Respondents to delete the Petitioners lands in an extent of Ac.2-87 Cents in Sy.No.489/2 A and B of Avilala Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District from the list of Prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and further direct the 6th Respondent to receive and Register the documents to be submitted by the Petitioners ”

¶7

The case of the petitioners is that, land to an extent of Ac.4-61 cents was classified as Government Land (Assessed Waste Dry) and later, the same was assigned in favour of Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri P. Vasudeva Reddy vide DKT No.110/4/70 dated 15.11.1970 by the Tahsildar, Chandragiri. Later, the original assignees alienated the above land in favour of Smt. Kilari Lalithamma w/o Ramachandra Naidu to an extent of Ac.2-30 ½ cents vide Registered Sale Deed dated 3736/1976 dated 11.12.1976 and in favour of Smt. Kandipati Kamalamma w/o VEnkatarama Naidu to an extent of Ac.2-30 ½ cents vide Registered Sale Deed No.,3735/76 dated 11.12.1976. The third respondent vide Proceedings R.Dis.No.792/2007 dated 10.09.2007 resumed the land. Aggrieved by the resumption, Smt. Kilari Lalithamma filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and W.P.No.2210 of 2009.

¶8

MSM,J WP_7937_2021

¶9

¶10

This Court vide order dated 09.02.2009 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners till disposal of the appeal and also further directed not to alter the nature of the land. Later, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati vide order dated 04.06.2011, passed an order setting-aside the resumption order and vide proceedings R.Dis(D) 720/2011 dated 20.06.2011 restored the land of an extent of Ac.4-61 cents in Sy.No.489/2 in Avilala Village in favour of Smt. Kilari Lalithamma and K. Hari Prasad.

¶11

While the matter stood thus, the fifth respondent refused to receive and register the documents on the ground that, the land in issue is an assigned land and assailing the same, Smt. Kilari Lalithamma and K. Hari Prasad filed W.P.No.28749 of 2014. This Court in W.P.M.P.No.35987 of 2014 in W.P.No.28749 of 2014 on 30.10.2014 granted interim direction. In pursuance of the interim order, the sixth respondent registered the gift deed and sale deeds. W.P.No.28749 of 2014 was disposed of by the Court on 29.01.2016. In the meanwhile, the second respondent/District Collector without considering the orders passed by the Tahsildar under Section 3(5) of Act No.9 of 1977, issued the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2018 and included the land in the list of prohibitory properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by the second respondent/District Collector in including the lands of the petitioners in the prohibitory properties list and requested to issue appropriate direction.

¶12

MSM,J WP_7937_2021

¶13

¶14

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition.

¶15

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents placed on record written instructions of the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal vide Roc.A/44/2021 dated 31.03.2021 and contended that, an application should be made by paying requisite fee through Mee Seva to the District Collector/ 2^nd respondent herein for deletion. Based on the concession made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought liberty to submit an application through Mee Seva and requested to pass appropriate order.

¶16

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate application through Mee Seva for deletion/denotifying the land in dispute from the prohibitory properties list published under Section 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act. On making such application, the respondents shall make necessary enquiry into the matter and the second respondent shall pass necessary order thereon. No costs.

¶17

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

¶18

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Date:16.07.2021 SP

Akula Sravan Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Sravan Kumar 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

Gavireddy Varahalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valavala Satyanarayana, Vs Sri Muthyala Raju Revu

Govada Maha Nakshatrakudu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vankivolu Tirupal Reddy Vs the Special Deputy Collector

Vemana Ramanaiah Vs the Special Deputy Collector

E.Satish Kumar Vs The State of A.P.