Disposed

Siddireddi Venkateswara Rao, v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2024WP/10335/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct government authorities to issue a ryotwari patta for disputed land under a 1972 petition that was untraceable. The court found the original application missing in records.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh application with documentary evidence within two weeks; respondents to conduct enquiry within three months.

Siddireddi Venkateswara Rao, Vs Union of India — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH;:AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10335 OF 201R

¶6

Between:

¶7

Siddireddi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. S.Sasidhar, Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.4-1-11, Kotha Agaraharam, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District. ...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

Union of India, Rep. by Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, New Delhi.

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal, Secretary^ Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 6. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural(M) at Chinnagadili, Visakhapatnam District.

¶13

Forest Settlement officer, Srikakulam, Sriakulam District. 8. Forest Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 9. The Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam., - 10. The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer Visakhapatnam,

¶14

Visakhapatnam District.

¶15

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep: by its

¶16

Commissioner, Siripuram, VUDA Complex, at Visakhapatnam.

¶17

The Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records,

¶18

Visakhapatnam.

¶19

The Sub-Registrar, Madurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep; by its . Commissioner. Neat RTC Complex, at Visakhapatnam

¶21

¶22

...Respondents 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 pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent nos.7 & 10 in not disposing the petition dated: 05-05-1972 submitted by father of petitioner despite repeated requests as Illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural jstice and consequently direct the respondents to settle the issue by disposing of the application by issuing ryotwari patta to the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.88.08 cents in Sy.No.29 situated at Kommadi(v), Chinnagadili Rural(M), Visakhapatnam District.

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 13026 OF 20161

¶24

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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land i.e. land to an extent of Ac.88.08 cents in Sy.No.29 situated at Kommadi(v). Chinnagadili Rural(M), Visakhapatnam District till finalization of the entire issue by the respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.M.M. SRINIVASA RAO,

¶25

Representing SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. M. UMA DEVI, (SC FOR CENTRAL

¶27

GOVERNMENT)

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2, 7 to 9: GP FOR FOREST

¶29

DEPARTMENT

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 6,10,12 & 13: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.11: SRI P.JAGADISH CHANDRA

¶31

PRASAD (SC FOR VUDA)

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

. '

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶35

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶36

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO; 10335 OF 2016

¶40

Between:

¶41

Siddireddi Venkateswara Rao,, S/o. S.Sasidhar, Aged 49 years, Occ; Business, R/o. D.No.4-1-11, Kotha Agaraharam, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶42

...PETITIONER(S)

¶43

AND

¶44

Union of India, Rep. by Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, New Delhi.

¶45

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶46

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶47

The District Collector Visakhapatnam, -

¶48

The Revenue Divisional Officer Visakhapatnam, -

¶49

The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural(M) At Chinnagadili, Visakhapatnam District.

¶50

Forest Settlement officer, Srikakulam, Sriakulam District.

¶51

Forest Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶52

The Divisional Forest Officer Visakhapatnam, -

¶53

The Joint CollectorcumSettlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶54

¶55

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep: by its Commissioner, Siripuram, VUDA Complex, at Visakhapatnam.

¶56

The Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam.

¶57

The SubRegistrar, Madurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶58

Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep: by its Commissioner, Neat RTC Complex, at Visakhapatnam

¶59

• • • RESPONDENTS

¶60

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 pleased toto^issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring^the action of the respondent nos. 7 Ss 10 in not disposing^the petition dated: 05-05-1972 submitted by father of petitioner despite repeated requests as illegal, arbitrary and^violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct^the respondents to settle the issue by disposing of the application by issuing ryotwari patta to the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.88.08 cents in Sy.No.29 situated at Kommadi(v), Chinnagadili Rural(M), Visakhapatnam District

¶61

I.A. NO; 1 OF 2016 fWPMP. NO; 13026 OF 20161

¶62

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^ofthe petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land i.e. land to an extent of Ac.88.08 cents in Sy.No.29 situated at Kommadi(v), Chinnagadili Rural(M), Visakhapatnam District till finalization of the entire issue by the respondents, pending the disposal of writ petition^inthe interest of justice

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M V HANUMANTHA^RAO

¶64

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS (AP)

¶65

¶66

Counsel for the Respondents: 15548/GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶67

Counsel for the Respondents: HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

¶68

Counsel for the Respondents: 9950/P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD (SC FOR VUDA)

¶69

The Court made the following:

¶70

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article

¶71

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following^relief:-

¶72

“to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos. 7 to 10 in not disposing the petition dated 05.05.1972 submitted by father of petitioner despite repeated requests as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to settle the issue by disposing of the application by issuing ryotwari patta to the petitioner in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.88.08 cents in Sy.No.29 situated at Kommadi (v) Chinnagadili Rural(M) Visakhapatnam District”

¶73

Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned advocate

¶74

appearing on behalf of Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, JVls.M.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent No.l, Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 11 and the learned Government Pleaders for Forests and Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶75

¶76

The grievance of the petitioner is that his late father had made an application dated 05.05.1972 for conducting proper enquiry on his lands.

¶77

Today when the Writ Petition came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has produced a copy of written instructions of the District Collector vide Rc.No.273/2024/Fl/Dt. 12.02.2024 wherein^it is stated that a thorough search has been made in their office record room for the above petition dated 05.05.1972 but the application was not found. As such, the District Collector has requested the learned Government Pleader to make a request to the Court to direct the petitioner to file a fresh claim along with the documentary evidences proving his right over^the schedule land and after conducting a detailed enquiry, appropriate orders will be passed as per the procedure in vogue.

¶78

In view of the same, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the petitioner to submit^afresh application duly enclosing the application made on 05.05.1972 along with all the documentary evidences to

¶79

¶80

¶81

prove his title over the said land within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.^After receiving the same, the respondents are directed to^conducta detailed enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months thereafter.

¶82

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is

¶83

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84

Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶85

any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶86

SDI- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

OFFICER

The Deputy Secretary, Union of India, Forest Department, New Delhi.

¶91

1. The Principal Secretary,State of Andhra Pradesh Forest Department,

¶92

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶93

The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department,

¶94

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶95

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

¶96

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam.

¶97

At Chinnagadili, Visakhapatnam

¶98

Forest Settlement officer, Srikakulam, Sriakulam District. 8. Forest Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District

¶99

The Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam

¶100

10.The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam

¶101

Visakhapatnam District.

¶102

% ■

¶103

11.The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Siripuram, VUDA Complex, at Visakhapatnam.

¶104

12.The Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Visakhapatnam.

¶105

13.The Sub-Registrar, Madurawada, Visakhapatnam,

¶106

14.The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Neat RTC Complex, at Visakhapatnam.(Addressee nos.1 to 14 by RPAD)

¶107

15.One CC to Sri M V Hanumantha Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶108

le.Two CCs to GP for Forest, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 17.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 18.One CC to Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC]

¶109

19.One CC to Ms. M.Uma Devi, Standing Counsel [OPUC]

¶110

20.One CC to Sri P Jagadish Chandra Prasad, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 21.Two C.D Copies

Cvss(MBT)

/ %

high court

DATED; 12/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.10335 of 2016

^o’
ISO ai
2 'i JUL 2024 m
Section .69,

¶118

disposing the w.p WITHOUT COSTS

Siddireddi Venkateswara Rao, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddireddi Venkateswara Rao, v. Union of India

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

Bonam Venkata Chalamayya Educational Society Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Jasti Srikanth Vs The Central Board of Secondary Education

Dr.Jyothirmayi Degree College, Behind A.P.H.B. Colony, Vs The State of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Higher

Jaya Educational society Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gopikrishna Educational Scty,Ysr Dist Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Education,Hyd,and 4

Sri Koundinya Educational Society, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh