Disposed

Rayudu Saroja v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2022WP/404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the inaction of the District Collector regarding a revision petition she filed under a land-related government order. The court directed the Collector to dispose of the revision after giving notice to all parties concerned, though it did not determine the substantive grant of permission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to deal with the pending revision petition and pass appropriate orders after giving notice and opportunity to all parties concerned.

Rayudu Saroja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.404 of 2022

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 2^nd respondent/District Collector in not disposing of the Revision Petition filed on 03.06.2021 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents in Sy. No.99/1, situated in Pattavala Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District; the neighbouring agriculture land holders filed W.P.No.23205 of 2020, questioning the action of the respondents therein in not considering their applications and the said writ petition was disposed of on 17.02.2021, directing the respondents therein to pass orders on the applications made by the petitioners therein, in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 16.03.2013 and the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.9489 of 2011 dated 08.04.2011; the petitioner is not a party respondent in the said W.P.No.23205 of 2020; pursuant to the said direction, a table enquiry was held and no notice was issued to the petitioner and the objections were also not called for, and the applications made by the petitioners therein were disposed of. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision before the District Collector to consider his objections, dated 03.06.2021, but the said Revision is not disposed of till now. Hence, the writ petition.

¶5

The copy of the order in W.P.No.9489 of 2011, which is filed by the petitioner, is not filed along with the present writ petition.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the District Collector in accordance with Clause 7.30 of G.O.M.S.No.7, dated 16.03.2013.

¶7

A copy of the Revision Petition said to have been filed by the petitioner before the 3^rd respondent is filed along with the writ petition, which shows the date of filing of the same as 03.06.2021 and the same is also acknowledged by some person, but the same does not have stamp of the District Collector’s Office.

¶8

The neighbouring land holders of the petitioners, who filed W.P.No.23205 of 2020 are also not made parties to the present Writ Petition, and it is also not known as to whether permission has been granted to them or not. In view of the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner has filed any application revision before the District Collector in accordance with Clause 7.30 of G.O.Ms.No.7, on 03.06.2021 and if the same is pending, the 2^nd respondent is directed to deal with the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to all the parties concerned.

¶9

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

__________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶12

Date: 04.02.2022 PGT

¶13

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.404 of 2022

¶15

Date: 04.02.2022

¶16

PGT

Rayudu Saroja v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayudu Saroja 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

Gampala Kanya Kumari Vs Matcha Janaki

Haji Mohammed Abdulla, Ysr Dist Vs Prl Secy, Rev Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

M/s Amaranath ChilliesTraders, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boyapati Chandraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Maddaiah, Vs Sri P.S.John, I.T.S.

S.Muthukumar Swamy Vs Sri Lov Agarwal, I.A.S.