Dismissed

Anne Sivarama Prasad, Krishna Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024WP/39622/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Writ Petition No. 39622 of 2014 for want of prosecution. The petitioner had challenged a demand notice and property attachment under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act. An IA sought impleadment following the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution without costs.

Anne Sivarama Prasad, Krishna Dist Vs Prl Secy… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ i ■ . V

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39622 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Anne Sivarama Prasad, S/o. Sri. A.Venkateswara Rao aged about 50 years, Business, R/o. D.No. 2-42 Godavarru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Kankipadu Village and Mandal Krishna District, Vijayawada. 3. The District Collector, Krishna District, Vijayawada. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum. Competent Authority under Land Acquisition Act Krishna District, Vijayawada.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 Wm?OF°MlMniM IQ f particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by setting aside the demand notice dated 12-12-2014 issued under Sec.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, by the Second Respondent seeking to „ , , , an amount of Rs.57.92,714 and attaching the petitioners property admeasuring Ac.0.55 cents in R.S. No. 76/4 Ac 0 50 cents Tbi/ir 386/66 cents in D.No. sIsT inTs 181/IB of Kankipadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District and declare the same as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 49685 OF 2014)

¶15

th» praying that in the circumstances stated ini the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to are attached pursuant to the impugned order dated 12-12-2014 issued under Sec.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 by the Second Respondent

¶16

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 49686 OF 2014)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to notice dated 12-12-2014 issued, under Sec.7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 by the Second Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 1547 OF 2015)

¶19

Between:

¶20

Sri Krishna Sai Real Estates, Office at ; G-1, Mohan Bagh Apartments, Dpornakal Road Suryaraopet, Vijayawada Krishna District, Rep. by its Prtner Sri manne Vishnu, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao, Aged 52 years, R/o. H.No.51-3-19, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

...PROPOSED RESPONDENT No.5

¶22

AND

¶23

Anne Sivarama Prasad, S/o. Sri. A.Venkateswara Rao aged about 50 years. Business, R/o. D.No. 2-42 Godavarru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶24

„ ^ ...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶25

1. The Tahsildar, Kankipadu Village and Mandal Krishna District, Vijayawada. 4. The District Collector, Krishna District, Vijayawada. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum. Competent Authority under Land Acquisition Act Krishna District, Vijayawada.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶27

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 implead the petitioner firm as proposed Respondents as party Respondent No 5 in theabove Writ Petition No.39622 of 2014.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI Y. SUBBA RAO, ASST.GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Ms. A. SRI JAYANTHI, GP for land acquisition counsel for the proposed Respondent No.5: SRI V. VENKATA NAGARAJU, REP. BY SRI N. PUPESWAR REDDY

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.39622 of 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT; -

¶33

Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the f petitioner is not present. There is also no request^onhisbehalf. 2. Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent No.l, Ms. A. Sri Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri N. Rupeswar Reddy, learned counsel on behalf of Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, learned counsel for the proposed respondent No. 5 are present.

¶34

The Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶36

SD/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

One CC to Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri N. Rupeswar Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.39622 of 2014

OP AWof^
/Af^‘
■fX-
tSs
^ ^ JUL 2m ml
viK-S'- wl! Section
~'-i

¶44

DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS

Anne Sivarama Prasad, Krishna Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anne Sivarama Prasad, Krishna Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others

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

Palakuri Kalidas, Vizianagaram Dist. Vs the Dist. Collector, Vizianagaram and 2 Others

Darla Kamlamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S.Sri Sri Vigneswara Constructions Vs Y.Sri Lakshmi

Partner, M/S. Krishna Sai Real Estates, Vijayawada Vs Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, and 4 Others

Goturi Radha, Chittoor District and 3 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Stamps and Registration Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Mummidi Koteswara Rao, Vs Kothani Veera Venkata Satya Appa Rao