Allowed

Ramireddy Sunitha at Sunithamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2022WP/36808/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amravati bench disposed of two writ petitions seeking direction to implement an order deleting lands from the Prohibited Category List under the Registration Act. The court directed relevant respondents to implement the order within four weeks. No grounds for disposal were detailed in the order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 directed to implement the orders dated 20.1.2019 passed by the District Level Committee by deleting the subject matter lands from the Prohibited Category List within four weeks

Ramireddy Sunitha at Sunithamma Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.36808 & 36809 OF 2022

¶4

Between:-

¶5

W.P. No.36808 of 2022

¶6

Ramireddy Sunitha @ Sunithamma, W/o.Dayakar Reddy

¶7

W.P. No.36809 of 2022 Ramireddy Dayakar Reddy

¶8

and

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others

¶10

… Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Mr.K.Nithin Sai Krishna Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Revenue

¶11

COMMON ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the writ petitions are disposed of, at the stage of admission, by this common order.

¶13

The writ petitions are filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in implementing the orders of the 2^nd respondent dated 20.1.2019 by deleting the

¶14

¶15

subject matter lands of the respective petitioners from the ‘Prohibited Category List’ under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re-settlement Register) Act, 2017 (for short, the Dotted Lands Act), violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to implement the orders of the 2^nd respondent by deleting the subject matter lands of the petitioners from the ‘Prohibited Category List’.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to various averments made in the writ petitions, inter alia submits that the petitioners are the owners of the subject matter lands and are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that during the year 2015, the lands in question were listed under Prohibited Category without any basis and the petitioners made representations to the concerned Authorities to delete the said lands from the Prohibited Category List. He further submits that pursuant to the enactment of the Dotted Lands Act, in the year 2017, the petitioners made applications

¶17

¶18

through Meeseva before the District Level Committee headed by its Chairman and the District Collector seeking appropriate orders for treating the subject matter lands as patta lands and for updating the same in the Resettlement Register and deleting the said lands from the Prohibited Category List. He further submits that after due enquiry and on receipt of the report, the District Level Committee passed orders on 20.1.2019 allowing the petitioners’ applications and directed the District Registrar to delete the subject matter lands from the Prohibited Category List maintained by the Department under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. He further submits that despite the above said orders passed by the competent Authority and even after making repeated representations by the petitioners, no action has been taken for implementation of the said orders dated 20.1.2019 and therefore, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions.

¶19

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, while not disputing the orders or the competency of the District Level Committee, submits that the said orders are required to be implemented by the District

¶20

¶21

Registrar being subordinate to the District Level Committee. He, however, points out that in view of the bifurcation of the Districts, the 4^th respondent is the Authority to implement the District Level Committee’s orders.

¶22

Considering the submissions made and perusing the orders dated 20.1.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent, and in view of the undisputed factual and legal position, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to implement the orders dated 20.1.2019 passed by the District Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions

¶24

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶26

November 18, 2022.

¶27

Note: Dispatch order copy in three days. (By Order) vasu

Ramireddy Sunitha at Sunithamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramireddy Sunitha at Sunithamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akkisetti Seshu Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kolukuluri Krishna Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chanumolu Tirupataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chanumolu Tirupataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddapuri Kiran Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh