Disposed

Karri Sudhakara Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 May 2024WP/1103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-deletion of purchased property from prohibitory properties list by revenue authorities. Court disposed of petition directing authorities to decide the pending application within three months citing Supreme Court precedent on quick disposal not ensuring justice.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 18.07.2022 within three months from receipt.

Karri Sudhakara Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1103 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

ip\RRI SUDHAKARA REDDY, S/o Subbi Reddy, Age. 45 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Subbireddi Nilayam,Gantayari Veedhi, Chitnhalapudi Village and Mandal, Eluru District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District.

¶13

The District Registrar, Eluru District at Eluru.

¶14

The Sub -Registrar, Chinthalapudi, Eluru District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents including my property admeasuring Ac 3.08 cts in Sy.No.289/2 and the land admeasuring Ac 1.92 cts in SY.No.289/3 situated at Teegalavancha Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District and not deleting from prohibitory properties list in spite of application made by the petitioner IS illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the petitioner property from prohibitory properties list forthwith.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI M P V N V SASTRI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶20

APHC010020442023

¶21

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

¶22

[3310]

¶23

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 1103/2023

¶27

Between:

¶28

Karri Sudhakara Reddy ...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.M PVN VSASTRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

The Court made the following Order:

¶34

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶35

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

‘‘...to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents including my property admeasuring Ac 3.08 cts in Sy. No. 289/2 and the land admeasuring Ac 1.92 cts in SY.No.289/3 situated at Teegalavancha Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District and not deleting from prohibitory properties list in spite of application made by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2P^ respondent to delete the petitioner property^from prohibitory properties list forthwith ..."

¶37

Heard Sri M.P.V.N.V.Sastry, learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader^for

¶39

Revenue.

¶40

¶41

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property admeasuring Ac.3.08 cents in Sy.No.289/2 and the land admeasuring Ac. 1.92 cents in Sy.No.289/3 situated at Teegalavancha Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, in the auction conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank (DCCB), Chintalapudi in E.P.No.86 of 2002-2003, dated 23.10.2002, as the original assignee failed to repay the mortgage debt with regard^to the subject matter properties. After issuance of sale certificate, dated 28.02.2003 in favour of the petitioner,^the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour and his name also mutated in online revenue records. When the Sub-Registrar/S**^ respondent herein refused to register the sale deed of the petitionerⁱⁿ respect of the subject matter properties, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.27078 of 2010 and this Court allowed the said writ petition vide order, dated 02.11.2010 directing the Sub-Registrar/5‘^ respondent herein to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner.^While the matter stood thus, after the petitioner came to^know that his properties are included in prohibited properties list. he made an application, dated 18.07.2022 to delete his properties from the prohibitory properties list. But^noaction

I 1 /

•ft

has been taken so far by the respondent authorities. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner limited his prayer by seeking a direction of this Court to the respondent authorities to dispose of the application, dated 18.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time.

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reported no objection for the same.

¶47

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh\ wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions,^but. they do not service to the cause of justice.

¶48

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the respondent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application, dated 18.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period^of

2019(8) SCALE 544

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of^this

¶54

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶56

any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- J.SAROJA

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO

To,

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

¶63

The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru

¶64

The Tahsildar, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District 4. The District Registrar, Eluru District at Eluru 5. The Sub -Registrar, Chinthalapudi, Eluru District 6. One CC to SRI M P V N V Sastri Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATE 0:06/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1103 of 2023

anohS3%,
o;
X 2 3 OCT 20?'! m
. Current Section

¶71

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Karri Sudhakara Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karri Sudhakara Reddy v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Mohammed Rafi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Y. Mrudula Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandla Chinna Pullaiah, Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

Yeluru Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medarametla Jakkaraiah Vs The Station House Officer Jaggaiahpet police station

Batta Jyothi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh