Disposed

Vadaganatham Sai Rajeswar Rao v. The Tahasildar

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Feb 2023WP/3953/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amravati Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging the resumption of assigned land by the Tahasildar. The court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within two weeks and closed the writ petition without deciding on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to prefer an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within two weeks. Writ petition disposed of. No costs.

Vadaganatham Sai Rajeswar Rao Vs The Tahasildar — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3953 of 2023

¶3

Vadaganatham Sai Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about 42 years, R/o. H.No. 13/12, Ramalayam Street, Podili, Prakasam District.

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Tahasildar, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District and 3 others.

¶7

….Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

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

¶10

The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that the 1^st respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2022 resuming the land to an extent of Ac.1.12 cents in Sy.No.92/2 of Kambalapadu Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶11

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.12 cents in Sy.No.92/2 of Kambalapadu Village, Podili

¶12

¶13

Mandal, Prakasam District. Initially in the year 1973, the petitioner’s grandfather acquired the subject land through a Registered Sale Deed. Subsequently, a Registered Sale Deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner’s maternal Aunt on 31.03.2006. Later on, she executed the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 18.08.2006 in favour of the petitioner. Then, the Revenue officials also issued Pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner for the subject land. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶14

While so, the 1^st respondent issued show cause notice dated 08.07.2022 in Form-2 under Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 2007 stating that the petitioner has been in possession of the assigned land for which he submitted a detailed explanation to the said Show cause notice. The main ground of the petitioner is that much prior to the coming into force of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, the petitioner’s ancestors were in possession of the said land. It cannot be considered as purchasing of the assigned land and the provisions of the act cannot be made applicable to the petitioner as his predecessors had been in possession of the land prior to the

¶15

¶16

year 1954 itself. But without considering the detailed objection of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of resumption dated 26.12.2022 is passed by the 1^st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that since the petitioner purchased the assigned land, after conducting enquiry, it was duly cancelled and the same is resumed by the 1^st respondent. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can prefer an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri.

¶18

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal before the 2^nd respondent against the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 26.12.2022 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. On receipt of the said appeal, the 2^nd respondent shall pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,

¶22

shall stand closed.

¶23

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶24

20.02.2023 UPS

Vadaganatham Sai Rajeswar Rao v. The Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadaganatham Sai Rajeswar Rao v. The Tahasildar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vadaganatham Sai Rajeswar Rao Vs The Tahasildar

Pandipotu Chandrayudu Vs the State of Ap

Pittu Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs State of Andra Pradesh

Yeddu Ramesh Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sunrise Meadows Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Jyothi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh