Disposed

Govada Maha Nakshatrakudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jul 2021WP/8640/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Tahsildar proceedings directing title settlement under writ petition. Court directed District Collector to dispose of pending appeal against Revenue Divisional Officer's order within eight weeks rather than adjudicating factual disputes.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Collector to dispose of the petitioner's appeal/representation against the Revenue Divisional Officer's order dated 02.07.2020 within eight weeks.

Govada Maha Nakshatrakudu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.8640 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“To issue Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the Proc R.Dis. No.109/2020B Dated 02.03.2021 issued by the 4^th respondent in so far as it relates to directing petitioner vis-a-vis party respondents to settle title over land Ac.1-39 cents in Sy.No.Etukuru Village, Guntur East Mandal by competent civil court contrary to its own findings recommendations with justified reasons issued in Proc R.Dis. No.109/2020B Dated 02.03.2021 issued by 4^th respondent is concerned as arbitrary illegal unconstitutional malafide violating Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same.”

¶6

The case of this petitioner is that, one N. Raghavan owned land to an extent of Ac.1-39 cents in Sy.No.302/303 in Etukuru Village, Guntur District. He sold the land to one Shaik Abdul Nabi Saheb in the year 1955, who further sold to Govada Subbamma vide Document No.1382/1957 dated 30.04.1957. On the same day, she executed gift deed for Ac.1-17 cents out of Ac.1-39 cents in D.No.7-A in favour of her son G. Ramachandraiah, petitioner’s father, vide Document No.1383/1957 dated 30.04.1957.

¶7

The petitioner’s father deposited the Document No.1383/1957 dated 30.04.1957 with Guntur Cooperative Bank Limited on 23.03.1979 and obtained loan based on the documents created mortgage by deposit of title deeds and those documents are in the custody of the bank. Except those documents, no financial transaction has taken place. After discharging the loan, the

¶8

MSM,J WP_8640_2021

¶9

¶10

petitioner restored possession of Ac.1-17 cents out of Ac.1-39 cents

¶11

in D.No.7-A and he is continuing in possession as on today.

¶12

It is contended that, the unofficial respondents allegedly created false and fabricated documents and registered as Document No.7315/1981 and 7317/1981 though the title deed was deposited with the bank for obtaining loan. The unofficial respondents took advantage of the documents, mutated their names and obtained pattadar passbook in their favour on the ground that, the petitioner’s father sold Ac.1-17 cents out of Ac.1-39 cents in D.No.7-A of Etukuru Village, Guntur East Mandal.

¶13

Vide proceedings Rc.No.490/2018-D dated 05.08.2019, the Tahsildar recommended to cancel D.No.7-A issued in favour of unofficial respondents on the ground that the documents issued to their Account Nos.367 and 1955 are not found. Thereupon, the petitioner filed ROR Case in Dis No.4156/2019-A before the Appellate Authority-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.07.2020 remanded the matter to conduct fresh enquiry. The same is challenged in W.P.No.23542 of 2020 before this Court. This Court after hearing the argument, issued notice before admission on 16.12.2020, giving liberty to issue personal notice to Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 therein through registered post with acknowledgment due.

¶14

However, the Tahsildar, Guntur East Mandal conducted enquiry afresh and issued proceedings Rc.No.109/2020-B dated 02.03.2021, directing the petitioner and unofficial respondents to settle the issue of title over an extent of Ac.1-39 cents in Sy.No.7-A

¶15

MSM,J WP_8640_2021

¶16

¶17

of Etukuru Village, Guntur East Mandal, before the competent civil court. The present writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings Rc.No.109/2020-B dated 02.03.2021 issued by the Tahsildar as illegal and arbitrary.

¶18

During hearing, learned counsel for the Smt. S.V. Indira, reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, while contending that, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.07.2020 is challenged before the District Collector, on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not competent and an appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is pending before the District Collector. But, appeal number and other details are not placed on record. However, the request made this petitioner is to cancel the Proceedings R.Dis. No.109/2020B Dated 02.03.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Guntur.

¶19

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue fairly submitted that the Collector will pass appropriate order(s) on the representation of this petitioner.

¶20

Notice on unofficial respondents was served and filed proof of service in USR No.30758 before this Court, but none appeared. Since the request of this petitioner is only to dispose of the representation/appeal against the order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court is not required to adjudicate upon the factual issues disputes, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

In view of the submission of both counsel, the second respondent/District Collector, Guntur District, is directed to

¶22

MSM,J WP_8640_2021

¶23

¶24

dispose of the representation/appeal filed by this petitioner against the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.07.2020, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in accordance with law, if it is pending for consideration.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶28

Date:15.07.2021 SP

Govada Maha Nakshatrakudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govada Maha Nakshatrakudu 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

Bhagavathula Hanumatha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chandragiri Govindamma Vs the Tahsildar

Eluri Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Gavireddy Varahalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gavireddy Varahalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valavala Satyanarayana, Vs Sri Muthyala Raju Revu