Disposed

Ch Ramakrishna Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2023WP/2663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged resumption proceedings, claiming insufficient time for explanation. High Court observed notices provided 15 days. Court ordered final submission within two weeks, dispose within three months thereafter, and disposed of writ.

What did the court decide?

Time granted for two weeks to submit final explanation; respondent to dispose within three months thereafter.

Ch Ramakrishna Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI j' I (Special Original Jurisdiction) i

¶2

MONDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2663 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Ch. Ramakrishna Prasad. S/o. Late Kusalva. aged 62 years, r/o. Chukkapalli Vari Street. Labbipet, Vijayawada. NTR District- 520010

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretarit. Velagapudi. Amaravathi. , 2. The Tahsildar. Lepakshi Mandal. Anantapur District.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be may be pleased to issue, an order or direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not granting sufficient time and in not considering the request of the petitioner submitted vide letter dated 19.01 2023 and m proceeding to pass resumption orders in respect of the lands of the petitioner in Kondur village. Lepakshi Mandal. Anantapur District as being illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against Principles of Natural Justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent grant the petitioner one month time to submit explanation along with all the documents in furtherance of Form I and Form II notices issued vide Rc.No.60/2021 dated 06.01.2023.

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶13

Linder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to grant time to the petitioner for submitting explanation as per representation dated 19.01.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition .

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. S PRANATHI

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.2663 of 2023

¶21

Between:

¶22

Ch. Ramakrishna Prasad, S/o. Late Kusalva, aged 62 years, R/o. ChukkapaUi Vari Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada, NTR Distict - 520010

¶23

Petitioner

¶24

And

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and another.

¶26

Respondents

¶27

ORDER;

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶29

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not granted sufficient time to submit the explanation along with the necessary documents in spite of i submitting a letter, dated 19.01.2023, in the resumption proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with Form-I and Form-II notices in Rc.No. • 60/2021, r- dated 05.01.2023, which were received by the

¶30

¶31

petitioner on 09.01.2023 to submit the explanation within 15 days to show cause as to why the land in survey numbers should not be resumed. The petitioner gave a letter, dated 19.01.2023 seeking sufficient time to give explanation along with necessary documents for the subject land covered under Form-I and Form-II of the said notices. Without considering the request of the petitioner, the 2"^ respondent is proceeding with the matter.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned Form-I and Form-II notices gave sufficient time of 15 days to submit the explanation by the petitioner, but the same was not availed. That apart, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated 19.01.2023 seeking one month time for submitting the explanation along with the necessary documents before the 2”*^ respondent, which is not permissible under law. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall finally submit his explanation for the Form-I and Form-II notices under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Rules, 2007, issued by the 2"<i respondent, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Within such time, the petitioner shall give the explanation along with the supporting documents, if any. In default, the 2’^^ respondent is at liberty to proceed further in the matter as per law. On

¶33

¶34

receipt of any such explanation along with the documents, if any, from the petitioner, within the stipulated time, the respondent shall dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter.

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. No costs.

¶36

As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

Sd/- K. TATARAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTIO^^ICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretarit, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Tahsildar, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. X)ne CC to Ms. S PRANATHI Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCsto GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies

VSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/02/2023

ORDER

WP.No.2663 of 2023

¶48

16 2E3
i.

¶49

15 d 9-

Ch Ramakrishna Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch Ramakrishna Prasad v. 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

Vemula Chinnappa/Yamala Chinnappa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothamaddi Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Rajashekar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kosuru Radhamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Siva Sankaraiah Vs the State of Ap

Eramalla Parvathamma Vs the State of Ap