Dismissed

Dharmala Somulamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Jul 2024WP/13645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Writ Petition challenging inaction by the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding an appeal against a Tahsildar's order. The court directed the Respondent to number the appeal, dispose of it within six weeks with a speaking order after hearing stakeholders, and communicate the result to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to number the appeal and consider it within six weeks by issuing notice to stakeholders, providing an opportunity of hearing, and passing a speaking order af

Dharmala Somulamma Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

< o
O

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRAS^^S^£^J^7 WRIT PETITION NO: 13645 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dharmala Somulamma, W/o Late Satya Rao, Aged about 77 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o D. No. 17-38-29, Venkannapalem Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

Smt. Kandrapu Lakshmi, W/ Narasinga Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o D. No. 31-7-120, Kummaraveedhi Allipuram, Visakhapatnam.

¶10

Smt. Patnala Pushpa, W/o Prasada Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o D. No. 18-127, Velampeta, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

Sri Dharmala Appala Reddy, S/o Late Satya Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Employee, R/o D. No. 17-38-29, Venkannapalem Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

Sri Dharmala Venkata Ramana,, S/o Late Satya Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o D. No. 17-38-29, Venkannapalem Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Assignments), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^Guntur District.

¶16

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Pedagantyada Mandal, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3'"'^ respondent having received the appeal on 20-08-2022 against decision of^{4'^} respondentⁱⁿ Rc. No. 31/2014/SA dated 22-06-2022, not number and decide the appeal on merits and there by trying to dispossess the petitioners^{fromthelandto} an extent of Ac.15.83 Cents in Sy. No. 274 of Venkannapalem, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to number the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 interfere and dispossess the petitioners from the lands to an extent of Ac. 15.83 Cents in Sy. No. 274 of Venkannapalem, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the above Writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. SREERAM FOR

¶23

SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI K. ARJUN CHOWDARY,

¶25

AGP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

[3328]

¶28

APHC010270882024

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETHDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 13645/2024

¶35

Between;

¶36

1.DHARMALA SOMULAMMA, W/0 LATE SATYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/0 D. NO. 17-38-29, VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶37

2.SMT. KANDRAPU LAKSHMI,, W/ NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/0 D. NO. 31-7-120, KUMMARAVEEDHI ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶38

3.SMT. PATNALA PUSHPA,, W/0 PRASADA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/0 D. NO. 18-127, VELAMPETA, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶39

4.SRI DHARMALA APPALA REDDY,, S/0 LATE SATYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE R/0 D. NO. 17-38-29, VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶40

5.SRI DHARMALA VENKATA RAMANA,, S/0 LATE SATYA RAO,^AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/0 D. NO. 17-3829, VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶41

...PETITIONER(S)

¶42

AND

¶43

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE

¶44

¶45

DEPARTMENT (ASSIGNMENTS), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶46

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶47

3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶48

4.THE TAHSILDAR, PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶49

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶51

1.HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶53

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶54

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶55

Heard Sri A. Sreeram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader^forRevenue.

¶56

It transpires from the record that the Order passed by the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) dated 22.06.2022 in Rc.No.31/2014/SA, was challenged by the Writ Petitioners before the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No.3) on 20.08.2022. It is submitted by the learned^Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that despite the fact that the Appeal against^the Order of the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) vide Rc.No.31/2014/SA dated 22.06.2022, has been filed way back on 20.08.2022 before the Revenue Divisional Officer

¶57

t-'V

¶58

¶59

(Respondent No.3) but the Appeal has not been numbered and has not been heard.

¶60

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No.3) is directed to number the Appeal and consider the same in accordance with law and pass a Speaking Order within six weeks from today and communicate a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioners forthwith. Needless to state that the Respondent No.3 shall issue Notice to all the stakeholders and provide reasonable opportunity of hearing and also to accept all such material documents before passing such Order.

¶61

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Order as to Costs.

¶62

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this

¶63

Order.

¶64

SD/-SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary Revenue Department (Assignments),^Stateof Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶69

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District,^{Visakhapatnam.} 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶70

The Tahsildar, Pedagantyada Mandal, Pedagantyada,^{Visakhapatnam.}

¶71

One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶73

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.13645 of 2024

OF
;o 0 9 AUG ?0?^ XZrr
'•v Cun’: ’} - Gec>"iofi
•J.V

¶80

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Dharmala Somulamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmala Somulamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Venkata Ratnam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

M/s. R.M. Mohite and Company, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Appala Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Ushodaya Wines, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Munuswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jasti Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its