The High Court dismissed a writ appeal preferring to challenge the dismissal of a petition by the State regarding the land-bagging of properties already adjudicated in civil suits in favour of the proprietors.
The writ appeal was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 272 OF 2023
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dt.22.07.2022 in W.P. No.16058 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under 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 receive additional documents being filed herewith on record by condoning the delay in filing thereof, in the interests of justice.
lA NO: 2 OF 207?
Petition under 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 suspend the operation of the order in W.P.No. 16058 of 2022 dated 22-07-2022, pending disposal of the above writ appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants : THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA The Court made the following: ORDER
«t>'
APHC010091862023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-28 AT AMARAVATI [3446]
WRIT APPEAL NO: 272 of 2023
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Palamangalam Chenga Reddy and Others ...Respondent(s)
Addl. Advocate General (AP), Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s)
Satheesh Kumar Eerla, Advocate(s) for Respondent(s)
CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 16“^ April 2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ fOrah:
The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.16058 of 2022.
Page 2 of 3
HCJ & RRR,J WA_272_2023
f
It is stated that the right and title of the petitioners having been questioned by the respondents, petitioners filed suits before the competent civil Court which were numbered as O.S.No.11 of 2007 and O.S.No.14 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nagari. The said suits were decreed on 11.09.2015 and the plaintiffs/petitioners were declared as absolute owners of the property in question.
- Not only this, the defendants/respondents were also directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. It is stated that the case of the petitioners was that after having succeeded before the civil Court, the respondents have included the subject properties of the suits under Section 22-A (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 by issuing Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.215 dated 13.05.2016.
Page 3 of 3
HCJ & RRR,J WA_272_2023
and decrees passed by the civil Court in favour of the petitioners were challenged through an appeal in the year 2021, after a delay of more than two thousand days, the operation of the decrees had not been suspended or interdicted by the appellate Court.
- The writ appeal is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications. iT any, shall stand closed.
//true copy//
To, SEC*
3N OFFICER
Amaravati fOUrr'® High Court of Andhra >Cb ne CC to Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla . Advocate fOPUCJ 3' Three C.D. Copies.
Cnr
1
HIGH COURT
DATED: 16/04/2024
ORDER
WA.No.272 of 2023
Cj
o
II 1 0 MAY 2m COmj
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the learned single Judge's decision dismissing the writ petition challenging the inclusion of decree-assigned properties under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Regis
Whether the absence of a suspension order on the decrees is a bar to the respondents including the properties under the prohibited list.
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Palamangalam Chenga Reddy
Dhiraj Singh Thakur
R. Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
