Disposed

Danda Govinda Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2022WP/5372/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ declaring the inclusion of Survey No.71 in prohibited properties list arbitrary. Court directed 2nd Respondent to consider pending application, conduct enquiry with notice, and pass order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ordered 2nd Respondent to consider application, conduct enquiry with notice, and pass appropriate order within six weeks.

Danda Govinda Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.5372 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in including the Survey No.71 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhpatnam Rural Mandal in the list of prohibited properties as arbitrary and un-constitutional and consequently direct the respondents to delete the said Survey No.71 from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and pass such orders.

¶4

The petitioner’s case briefly is thus:

¶5

(a) The petitioner purchased Plot No.14 measuring 200 Sq.Yards each in Survey No.71/2B and 71/2C of Paradesipalem Revenue Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhpatnam District, from one Pemmeraju Naga Raju, vide sale deed No.536 of 2005 registered at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madhurawada. The said Plot No.14 was regularized by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short ‘VUDA’) in proceedings Rc.No.23088/08/L.5, dated 18.11.2011.

¶6

(b) The petitioner’s vendor namely Dr.RAchakonda Jagannadha Rao had purchased Acres 4.31 cents of dry land in Patta No.272, Survey No.71/2B and 71/2C situated at Paradesipalem Village, Visakhpatnam District and the said vendor obtained the same about 30 years back from Vijayanagaram Estate.

¶7

¶8

(c) The petitioner’s vendor obtained approval of lay-out in Survey No.71/2 for an extent of Acres 4.31 cents of Paradesipalem Village from the VUDA in proceedings Rc.No.29/96-G.3, dated 08.12.1999 and VUDA had approved the proposed lay-out and released the layout plan bearing No.16/99 duly authenticated.

¶9

(d) The petitioner’s vendor converted the said land into NonAgricultural land and carved out 57 plots out of Acres 4.31 cents and the petitioner has purchased Plot No.14. The petitioner intends to dispose of the plot 14 from the lay-out made in Survey No.71/2B and 71/2C of Paradesipalem Revenue Village. However, the SubRegistrar, Madhurawada, has objected to register the document on the plea that Survey No.71 of Paradesipalem Revenue Village, Visakhpatnam Rural Mandal was in the prohibited properties list dated 19.09.2017. It is submitted that land in Survey Nos.71/2B and 71/2C of Paradesipalem were not included in the prohibited properties list, since no fresh notification was issued subsequent to the notification dated 19.09.2017.

¶10

(e) The petitioner made an application No.TTA012100079537, dated 06.12.2021 through Mee-Seva to the 2^nd respondent requesting him to delete the Survey No.71 admeasuring 5 acres of Paradesipalem Villege, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal from the list of prohibited properties but so far no action has been taken by the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

Hence, the writ petition.

¶12

¶13

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Amara Rama Rao and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s application submitted through online portal is pending for consideration, it is apposite to give a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the same and pass an appropriate order after conducting due enquiry.

¶15

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the application No.TTA012100079537, dated 06.12.2021 and after conducting due enquiry by affording notice to all concerned, pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs.

¶16

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

03.03.2022 SS

¶18

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

Danda Govinda Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danda Govinda Rao 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

K N Saradamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kamireddi Varahala Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ranga Ramadevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Harshavardhan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dwarapureddy Savitramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Mani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh