Disposed

Kurella Savitri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Aug 2021WP/9426/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an endorsement under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Registration Act excluding petitioner's land from peaceful possession. Court granted liberty to file fresh application via Mee Seva and disposed the petition without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appropriate application via Mee Seva; writ petition disposed. No costs.

Kurella Savitri Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.9426 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“to issue Writ of Mandamus dedaring that the impugned Endorsement Rc.No.118/2021/A dated 06.04.2021 issued by the 4th respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to exclude the land in Survey Nos.39/1 and 39/2 of Mamidilova Village Anandapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam District from the purview of Section 22 A Register as illegal arbitrary unjust contrary to law malafide violative of principles of natural justice violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional by holding that the respondents have no power or authority to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said land till the cancellation of the Assignment Patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer Srikakulam vide SR No.1(a)/721/62/BML dated 06.11.1962 in favour of the late father of the petitioner namely KureIla Seshayya under due process of law”

¶7

The case of the petitioners in brief is that, father of the petitioner was assigned land to an extent of Ac.127 cents in Sy.No.39/A and an extent of Ac.4-66 cents of Dry land in Sy.No.39/2, totally admeasuring an extent of Ac.5-73 cents, situated at Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, vide proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Srikakulam dated 06.11.1962 in Sr.No.11(a)/721/62/BML considered the claim of the petitioner’s father i.e legal right over the schedule property in Mamidilova Village for Ryothwari Patta. After considering the documentary evidence on record, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Srikakulam granted ryotwari patta by allowing the claim under Estate Abolition Act, 1956, as such, the petitioner’s father became absolute owner and pattadar of the above property.

¶8

MSM,J WP_9426_2021

¶9

¶10

It is contended that, the respondents are interfering with the property of this petitioner and threatening to demolish the structures by orally stating that the land belongs to Government. When the petitioner approached the respondents, the respondents informed that the subject property is included in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is contended that, no notice was issued to the petitioners prior to inclusion of said property in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, as such, the subject property cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, requested to de-notify the same.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

MSM,J WP_9426_2021

¶14

¶15

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 petitioner to submit appropriate application through Mee Seva on payment requisite fee for de-notifying or deleting the subject property from the list of Prohibited Properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Date:24.08.2021 SP

Kurella Savitri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurella Savitri 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

Chawa.Suguna Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Venati Leela Mohan Reddy Vs State of Ap

Satti Madhu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varikuti Venkata Krishna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravi Subbarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelisetti Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh