Disposed

Kolukuluri Krishna Kumari v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2022WP/34702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking deletion of land from a prohibitory list. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the District Collector's rejection order dated 06.8.2022 separately, noting service issues.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Proceedings dated 06.8.2022 of the 4th respondent.

Kolukuluri Krishna Kumari Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.34702 OF 2022

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Kolukuluri Krishna Kumari, W/o.Srinivasa Raju

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration & Stamps Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for petitioner : M/s.T.V.Sridevi Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Revenue G.P. for Stamps & Registration

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶13

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶14

The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action

¶15

of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in rejecting the petitioner’s online Meeseva application dated 27.1.2022 for deleting the petitioner’s land to an extent of 331 Sq.yards in Survey No.219/26P situated in Vizianagaram and an extent of 456 Sq.yards in Survey No.219/26P situated near Babametta, Vizianagaram Bit–II, Vizianagaram Village & Mandal, from prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration

¶16

¶17

(Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1999 (for short, the Amendment Act) as illegal, arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to delete the petitioner’s land situated in survey No.219/26P, near Babametta, Vizianagaram Bit–II, Vizianagaram, in view of the order dated 28.5.1977 in L.C.C.No.103 of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the various averments made in the writ petition and the documents filed in support of the petitioner’s case, inter alia submits that the respondents without verification of the records, erroneously rejected the petitioner’s application uploading the status in Meeseva online as “Rejected”. He submits that under the said circumstances, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.8.2022, inter alia stating that the land in survey No.219/26 is exclused from computation by the Land Ceiling Tribunal, and the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s application for deleting the subject matter land from ‘Prohibited Category’ list is not sustainable. Learned

¶19

¶20

counsel submits that the petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy, and as the impugned rejection is bereft of reasons, she is constrained to approach this Court.

¶21

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, while placing the instructions dated 05.11.2022 received from the 7^th respondent for perusal of this Court, submits that the petitioner’s application was rejected by the 4^th respondent vide proceedings dated 06.8.2022. He submits that the petitioner instead of challenging the said proceedings filed the present writ petition and the same is not tenable. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶22

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record including the Proceedings dated 06.8.2022 of the 4^th respondent. As seen from the said proceedings, the 4^th respondent–District Collector appears to have rejected the request of the petitioner on the basis of recommendations made by the respondent Nos.6 and 7. The said proceedings also contains an endorsement to the effect that the same has to be served to

¶23

¶24

the petitioner through the 7^th respondent. However, the instructions dated 05.11.2022 lacks the details with regard to the service of the said proceedings on the writ petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 06.8.2022 has not been served on the petitioner.

¶26

Be that as it may. As it transpires that the petitioner’s application has been rejected by the 4^th respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 06.8.2022, if she is so advised.

¶27

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶29

November 17, 2022. vasu

Kolukuluri Krishna Kumari v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolukuluri Krishna Kumari 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

P Santhosham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Yesathru Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gunnam Merimma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Akkisetti Seshu Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Paturi Kiran Chowdary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

M/s Sri Rama Builders Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh