Partly allowed

Penumala Appa Rao v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2021WP/8571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two common Writ Petitions involving leasehold land disputes. One petitioner was allowed to withdraw with liberty to file under a new Act, while the other was permitted to raise objections to the proposed fresh application.

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.16678 of 2020 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; W.P.No.8571 of 2020 disposed of permitting petitioner to raise objections to the application.

Penumala Appa Rao Vs The State of A.P. — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOS.16678 of 2020 AND 8571 of 2020

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

As the issue involved in both these Writ Petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this Common order.

¶5

W.P.No.8571 of 2020 is filed by one P.Appa Rao, the lessee of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.980/7, 988/1 and 988/2 of Line Peta Village, H/o.Pallamkurru, Katrenikona Mandal, East Godavari District; it is stated that the said lease is taken by the petitioner along with one Jagadam Kumar from Bala Koteswara Rao; as seen from the contents of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted a representation on 17.02.2020 raising objections against the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein; according to him, the unofficial respondents are digging the tank without obtaining any permission whatsoever.(the 9^th respondent in W.P.No.8571 of 2020 is the petitioner in W.P.No.16678 of 2020).

¶6

W.P.No.16678 of 2020 is filed by K.Bethalaswamy to declare the inaction of the 3^rd respondent District Collector-cumChairman in not deciding the application filed by the petitioner on 22.02.2020 for registering existing fresh water aqua culture farm as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

When this Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of the

¶8

¶9

status-quo order in W.P.No.8571 of 2020, they are not able to process the application made by the petitioner.

¶10

When W.P.No.8571 of 2020 came up for admission on 13.05.2020, an order of Status-quo was passed with regard to the digging of the fish tank.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16678 of 2020 submits that as the petitioner needs to file a fresh application in accordance with Act 29 of 2020, he seeks permission to withdraw the said Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh application under the new Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8571 of 2020 submits that he may be permitted to file his objections to the application that would be filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.16678 of 2020.

¶13

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, W.P.No.16678 of 2020 is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner therein to file fresh Writ Petition, if need be.

¶14

W.P.No.8571 of 2020 is disposed of permitting the petitioner therein to raise the objections if any to the application that would be filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.16678 of 2020. However, if any such objection is raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.8571 of 2020 against grant of permission to the petitioner in W.P.No.16678 of 2020, the competent authority is directed to deal with the same, if the same is permitted in accordance with law.

¶15

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions

¶18

shall stand closed.

¶19

__ _______________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶20

Date: 22.12.2021 TM

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶23

WRIT PETITION NOs.16678 AND 8571 OF 2020

¶24

Date: 22.12.2021

¶25

¶26

Penumala Appa Rao v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penumala Appa Rao v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Kumar Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. S.S. Agri Tech REp by its Managing Director P. Prasad Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Kesav Bio-Tech (P) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Smt. Rathnamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle

Kodamanchi Siva, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

D.S.S.V.V. Varma, E.G. Dist Vs Spl Secy to Govt Animal Husbandry, Dairy Devp, Hyd and 11 Ot