Disposed

K. Kusumamba v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Oct 2021WP/8308/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of Pattadar Passbook claiming illegality and violation of natural justice. Court, without deciding merits, directed petitioner to file application for de-notification from prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed to file an application for de-notification of the property from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

K. Kusumamba Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.8308 OF 2021

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declaring the proceeding No. Roc.E1/e-office computer No. 281606/2020 dated 05.09.2020 of respondent No.3 in cancelling the Pattadar Passbook vide Khata No. 338 and the entries made in Web land adangal in respect of Petitioner’s patta land in Sy. No. 156/2D/1B to an extent of Ac.535 cents of Peddativakam village, Satyaavedu Mandal, Chittooor District, Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and rules made thereunder and against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Dotted lands (Updating in resettlement Register) Act 2017 and consequently set aside the proceedings ROC. E1/e-office Computer No. 281606/2020 dated 05.09.2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶6

Precisely, the case of petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.535 cents in Sy. No. 156/2D/1B, situated at Peddativakam village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittor District. The subject land is ancestral property of petitioner’s husband K. Sriramulu Reddy. After demise of her father-in-law her husband’s name was recorded in the revenue records. Subsequent to her husband’s demise, her name was also recorded in the revenue records. She was issued Pattadar passbook with katha No.329 and she is in possession and enjoyment of the land, since decades. Suddenly, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings in Roc.E1/e-Office Computer No. 281606/2020 dated 05.09.2020 classifying the land of the petitioner as Government land stating that the entries made in webland are wrong. She replied back to the notice on

¶7

¶8

17.08.2020. But, without hearing the petitioner, basing on the fake allegations, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings for cancellation of pattadar pass book. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, she filed the present Writ Petition.

¶9

During hearing, Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that despite the orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions, the 3^rd respondent is not denotifying subject property from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Act and therefore the inaction of 3^rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as claimed and the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order in W.P.No.14073 of 2021, dated 26.07.2021, which is passed in similar circumstances and based on these orders learned counsel for the petitioner requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.

¶10

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner did not make any demand by submitting appropriate application through Mee Seva on payment of requisite fee/charges to de-notify the subject property from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A(1)( c) of the Registration Act, and if the petitioner submits the application in proper mode, the authorities concerned will deal with the same in accordance with law.

¶11

In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, without touching the merits of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit appropriate application through Mee seva or through AP online on payment

¶12

¶13

requisite fee for de-notifying the subject property from the list of Prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶14

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

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

¶16

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 04.10.2021

Psr.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶21

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.8308 OF 2021

¶23

Date: 04.10.2021

¶24

Psr.

K. Kusumamba v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Kusumamba 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

Medam Pedda Vengal Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Aiyana Tulasamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pamchuru Madhusudan Vs The. State of Ap

P Nagabhushana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maddi Reddy Venkata Ramana Reddy Vs the State of Ap

K.Jamunamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh