Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pidatala Rami Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WA/466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal challenging an order directing the District Collector to delete certain lands from the prohibitory category list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The appeal claimed original assignment was fraudulent because lands were in a water body. The Court held no cogent reason to prove fraud and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Pidatala Rami Reddy — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

<br>

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR |

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 466 OF 2024

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder dated 17.11.2023 in W.P.No.14326 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagaudi, Guntur District.

¶11

The District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R Kadapa District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Radapa, Y. S.R. Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 tojH AND

¶14

Pidatala Rami Reddy, S/o Pidatala Easwar Reddy, R/o. D. No. 8/493, Almaspet, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa Dis

¶15

Pidatala Sreedevi, W/o PidaMaRamireddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ House Wife, R/o D No 8/493 Almaspet, Kadapa City, Y.S.R.^District

¶16

P. Neelima, W/o Pamuri VenkataNarsireddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ House wife, R/o D No 8/493 Almaspet, Kadapa City, Y.S.R.^District 1

¶17

The District Cooperative Central Bank, Rep. by its Manager, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.

¶18

The Sub-Registrar, Kadapa Rural, Y.S.R. District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS,-

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 154 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶22

pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of order Dt. •' 17.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.14326 of 2023, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants: THE ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI V. R. REDDY KOWURI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT. M. SIVA JYOTHI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATIONS

¶27

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

APHC010205852024

IiT^.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶32

[3488]

¶33

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶34

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶38

WRIT APPEAL NO: 466/2024

¶39

Between:

¶40

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶41

...APPELLANT{S)

¶42

AND

¶43

Pidatala Rami Reddy and Others

¶44

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶45

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶46

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

1.V R REDDY KOWURI

¶49

2.M SIVA JYOTHI

¶50

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶51

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

¶52

The respondents 1 to 3 herein claim ownership of lands^overAc.2.84 cents in Sy.No.346/2, Ac.1.12 cents in Sy.No.347/2, Ac.1.40 cents in Sy.No.345, Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.351/2 and Ac.1.88^{centsinSy.No.352of} Chinnachowk Village fields, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R. District.^{Theselandsare} said to have been originally assigned to one Smt. C.^{Lakshmammaandher}

¶53

¶54

¶55

RRR, J&HNJ W.A.No.466 of 202J

¶56

family members, who had obtained agricultural loans by putting these lands as security. As they had failed to repay the same, the lands were sold by the Rayalaseema Farmers Services Co-operative Society Limited to one Sri C. Sreenivasulu. Thereafter the said lands were again sold by Sri C. Sreenivasulu to the aforesaid respondents.

¶57

The aforesaid respondents, after coming to know that these lands were included in the prohibitory lands list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.15607 of 2021 wherein the aforesaid respondents sought direction to the Sub-Registrar, Kadapa, to receive and register certain sale deeds presented by the petitioners therein/ respondents 1 to 3 herein. This Writ Petition was disposed of, by an order dated 04.08.2021 granting such direction. Later, the aforesaid respondents had moved an application for mutation of their names in the revenue records and the same was rejected by the concerned Tahsildar, by an endorsement, dated 22.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the aforesaid respondents moved W.P.No.24211 of 2022, which came to be disposed of, by a Learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 18.08.2022, setting aside the rejection order with a further direction to the concerned Tahsildar to consider the application in the light of the

¶58

¶59

RRR, J&HN,J W.A.No.466 of 2024

¶60

¶61

observations of a Division Bench in the case of Sub-Registrar,^{Srikalahasti,}

¶62

Chittoor District vs. K.Guravaiah\

¶63

The aforesaid respondents again moved applications^fordeleting their property from the list of prohibitory properties.^{Thisrequestwasrejected} by way of proceedings, dated 26.02.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the aforesaid respondents had moved W.P.No.14326 of 2023,^{whichcametobe} allowed, by an order dated 17.11.2023, with a direction to the District Collector, Kadapa, who is the 2 nd appellant herein, to delete the said lands from the prohibitory category list, as expeditiously^{aspossible,andwithina} period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the^order.

¶64

Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal^hasbeen moved by the appellants.

¶65

The Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing^forthe appellants, would submit that though the aforesaid respondents had succeeded in the earlier round of litigation, the fact^{remainsthattheoriginal} assignment, in favour of Smt. C. Lakshmamma was because^{offraudandthat} all subsequent transactions would have to be declared as non est and consequentially the direction given by the Learned^{SingleJudgewouldhave} to be set aside. The assignment was a case of fraud^astheland is in a water body and could not have been assigned.

¶66

2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB)

¶67

¶68

RRR, J&HNi W.A.No.466 of 2024

¶69

The statement regarding to fraud was also made before the Learned Single Judge. That contention appears to have been raised on the ground that there was a report of the Sub-Collector, Kadapa, dated 31.03.2021, raising the question of fraud. The Learned Single Judge, after referring to this report and after considering the earlier round of litigation had held that the said report seems to be an after-thought and that no cogent reason has been given out to make out a case of fraud.

¶70

We are in agreement with the decision of the Learned Single Judge and do not find any reason to differ from the said view. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any shall stand

¶72

closed.

¶73

Sd/- Wl.RAWJESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE&THON OFFICER

To,

Two CC’s to the Additional Advocate General High Court of A.P.^t

¶78

Amaravati[OUT] /

¶79

One CC to Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. M. Siva Jyothi, Advocate[OPUC] ^

¶80

Two CCS to GP for Stamps and Registrations. High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶81

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/09/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.466 of 2024

m
te 3 0 SEP 2U'Zh Cot*
. Current Section

¶88

DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pidatala Rami Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pidatala Rami Reddy

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

Kommineni Prakas Rao Vs Daggupati Venkateswarlu

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Y Balasubrahmanyam Died

Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors. Vs Rachamallu Bhirava Konda Reddy and 2 Ors.

Gummadi Srinivas, Vs M/s.Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited

Boya Lakkamma, Vs Naraboina Ramachandrudu

Pugachetty Thimmappa, Anantapur Dist and 5 Others Vs S.Narasimhappa, Anantapur Dist and 6 Others