Disposed

Bonthala Reddamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2022WP/29153/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged inaction in a land assignment revision, the Court avoided deciding merits and directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to dispose of the pending revision within four weeks. Costs were not awarded.

What did the court decide?

The 1st Respondent is directed to dispose of the pending revision petition within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Bonthala Reddamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

■4%

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI Ho (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

Wig;

¶4

TUESDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 29153 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bonthala Reddamma, W/o. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bonthalavaripalle, H/o. Pulikallu village, Peddatippasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Revenue Department. A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Peddatippasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶17

B.Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Narayana, R/o. Bonthalavaripalle, H/o. Pulikallu village, Peddatippasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue ah appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1®* respondent in disposing of the Revision Petition filed on 12.09.2003 against the orders of the .2"'^ respondent in D.Dis.No. B(3)/22805/1997. dt. 03.06.1998 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1®* respondent to dispose of the Revision before him forthwith filed against the orders of the 2"** respondent in D.Dis.No. B(3)/22805/1997, dt. 03.06.1998.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 37792 OF 2015)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings passed by the 2"'^ respondent in D.Dis.No.B(3)/22805/1997, dt. 03.06.1998, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T. V. S. KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION Wo.29153 of 2015

¶26

ORDER;

¶27

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of

¶28

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶29

“...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the It respondent in disposing of the Revision Petition filed on 12.09.2003 against the orders of the 2"^ respondent in D.Dis.No.BS/22805/1997, dt. 03.06.1998 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to dispose of the Revision before him forthwith filed against the orders of the 2"“* respondent in D.Dis.No.BS/22805/1997, dt. 03.06.1998...” 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of land in an extent of Ac.4.32 cents in Sy.No.10/3 of Jagadamvaripalle Village, P.T.M.Mandal, Chittoor District. Considering the long standing possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, the then Mandal Revenue Officer granted assignment of land vide A.M.No.131/4/1397 dated 16.03.1988 under normal darkhast rules and was also issued pattadar passbook.

¶30

While so, the 4^^ respondent made a representation to the 3'^‘i respondent to delete the name of the petitioner and to restore the possession to him on the basis of some fictitious documents. Pursuant thereto the 4‘*» respondent submitted a report to the 3’^'1

¶31

¶32

respondent stating that the assignee has cultivated the land and the assignment was made under mistake of fact in favour of the petitioner. Basing on the said report, the respondent instead of processing the proposals to the District Collector, Chittoor for cancellation of the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner, issued instructions to cancel the said assignment on the ground of violatioii of condition No.2 of Darkhast patta. Accordingly, the 5*^ respondent issued notice in Form-I of the Assignment Rules, 1977 and submitted a report to the District Collector, Chittoor proposing the cancellation of the assignment granted earlier and accordingly the Joint Collector passed orders cancelling the assignment pattas and direct the Tahsildar to restore the subject land to the original assignee. Against the said orders, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad who in turn directed the petitioner to approach the Government if he so desires as he is not a competent authority to hold enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government which has not seen the light of the day so far. However, the 5^ respondent taking into advantage of the delay and procrastinating the matter and is trying to dispossess the petitioner

¶33

¶34

I* t

¶35

from the subject land, challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the orders of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the same is pending for consideration as of now. He further submits that the petitioner along with his daughter, filed O.S.No.19 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Junior Ciyil Judge, Tahmallapalle and obtained injunction orders against the 5* respondent on 21.11.2013, against which the 5*^ respondent did not prefer any appeal.

¶39

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and instead of going into the merits of the case, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the 1st Respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 22.09.2003 against the orders of the 2n<i Respondent in D.Dis.No.B(3)/22805/1997 dated 03.06.1998, in accordance with law, if not yet disposed of, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶40

¶41

7. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed^

¶43

SD/-U. SRIDEVI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, ,
1. The Pt;incipa1.Secr6tary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
^3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
4. The Tahsildar, Peddatippasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.
5. One CC to Sri T. V. S. Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
7. Two C.D. Copies

I i i

HIGH COURT

DATED;20/12/2022

ORDER

I O>^UG!!I!3
HEP^

WP.No.29153 of 2015

¶50

disposing of the w p WITHOUT COSTS

Bonthala Reddamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bonthala Reddamma, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sreedhar Kumar Reddy, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

K.Mohan Reddy, S/o. K.Muni Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Srimat Prativadi Bhayankaram Mantraratnam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chitala Ramaiah S/o Venkataiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Venkata Narayana Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary