Disposed

Smt.Lenka Satyavathi, Vizianagaram Dist v. Tahsildar, Vizianagaram Dist and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Feb 2022WP/3221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking title deeds and setting aside a revenue notice, the court noted an interim order directing the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders. Finding no further orders necessary, the petition was disposed of with a clear observation for future challenges if adverse orders arise.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with no further orders; no costs.

Smt.Lenka Satyavathi, Vizianagaram Dist Vs… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

Writ Petition No.3221 of 2014

¶3

Order:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to issue title deed to the petitioner for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situated in Survey No.57/3 of Kanimeraka village, Bondapalli revenue mandal, Vizianagaram district and to set aside the notice dated 27.12.2013 issued by the first respondent.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that her father namely Boodi Simhachalam was the absolute owner of the subject land and he executed a registered settlement deed dated 26.06.2002 in her favour and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same; subsequently, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to the petitioner on 24.05.2008 and the name of the petitioner was also incorporated in the revenue records, but while issuing the title deed, the second respondent has not signed on the same, hence she approached the second respondent for the same; petitioner received a notice dated 27.12.2012 from the first respondent asking her to appear on 06.01.2014 and stating that the fourth respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, gave a complaint against the petitioner and requested not to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioner herein; pursuant to the notice, petitioner appeared before the first respondent, however challenging the said notice, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 13.02.2014, the following interim order was passed.

¶7

“Petitioner states that in response to the notice impugned, petitioner has appeared before the

¶8

¶9

Tahsildar and he has recorded her statement. This Writ Petition is, however, moved apprehending that the Tahsildar is about to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed already issued to the petitioner.

¶10

Hence, pending further orders, there shall be a direction to respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders and in the meanwhile, not to cancel the pattadar passbook or title deed said to have already been issued to the petitioner.”

¶11

No counter affidavit is filed by the unofficial respondent.

¶12

As seen from the said interim order, the first respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the impugned notice.

¶13

In view of the said interim direction, no further orders are necessary in the Writ Petition. However, if any adverse orders are passed by the first respondent, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.

¶14

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶15

shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶17

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶19

Date:02.02.2022 Nsr

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶22

Writ Petition No.3221 of 2014

¶23

Date:02.02.2022

¶24

Nsr

Smt.Lenka Satyavathi, Vizianagaram Dist v. Tahsildar, Vizianagaram Dist and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lenka Satyavathi, Vizianagaram Dist v. Tahsildar, Vizianagaram Dist and 4 Others

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

Mudiduddi Satyanarayana Vs Donipati Satyanarayana

M/S. Pennar Aqua Exports Ltd, Sec'Bad Vs Secy, Revenue Dept (La), Hyd and Another

Smt.E.Sailajamma, W/o Venkata Sesha Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Mittikala China Chalamaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolluri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Pesangi Yesu, Vs The District Collector