Disposed

Simhadri Nancharayya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2024WP/4447/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of Revenue authorities regarding survey records. The court relied on the Tahsildar's instruction that a specific Form VI-A mutation application via Mee-seva was required under Rule 18, 1989, rather than the petitioner's representation. The petitioner was directed to file the proper application.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to make a proper mutation application in Form VI-A through Mee-seva; writ petition disposed of without costs.

Simhadri Nancharayya, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 4447 OF 2024

¶5

Between: R/o'^d''no^Ti‘1i60 Murthy, Aged 63 Years. Occ Cultivation, n,o. u. fiio. 11 ibO-2, Bandalaicheruvu, Avanigadda Mandal, Kristina District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Princioal SerrPtarv Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravath^. ^ Revenue 2. The Tahsildar,, Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS

¶6

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandarnus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 2 in rectification of records as per the survey report in 1-B, Adangal other Revenue records i in respect of petitioner's patta lands in Survey Nos. 19/5 19/6, 19/11, 19/12, 22/7, 22/4 to an extent of Ac. 2-33 cents situated at Edianka Village, Avanigadda Mandal, j Krishna District, by considering representation dated 12.01.2024 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to change the Survey Numbers as per the Survey Report.

¶7

lA NO: 1 OF 9()7A

¶8

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶9

it-

¶10

■f

¶11

pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed Respondent No.3 as Respondent No.3 in W.P.No. 4447 of 2024. <

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶13

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶14

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.4447 OF 2024

¶18

Simhadri Nancharayya, S/o Krishna Murthy, Aged 63 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o D.No.l 1-160-2, Bandalaicheruvu, Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District.

¶19

... Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P and another.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Koteshwara Prasad

¶24

Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing^onbehalf of the respondents.

¶27

The writ petition is filed to declare the inaction^{ofthe2"^} respondent in rectificatir of survey report and other^recordsin respect of the petitioner’s Patta land in Sy.Nos.19/5, 19/6,

I I

Page 2 of 4

SRSJ WP No.4447/2024

19/11, 19/12, 22/7 and 22/4 to an extent of Ac.2-33 cents situated at Edlanka Village, Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed O.S.No.l04 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda against one Simhadri Sarala, W/o Mohana Rao for perpetual injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.431 of 2023 for grant of ad-interim injunction. The petitioner also filed l.A.No.477 ol 2023 to appoint Advocate Commissioner and in fact the Civil Court appointed AdvocateCommissioner. Learned Advocate-Commissioner filed report. The petitioner made application to the Tahsildar to correct the boundaries as per the report of the Advocate-Commissioner. Since the representation dated 12.01.2024 submitted to the 2'^d respondent is not considered, the above writ petition^isfiled.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions of the Tahsildar, Avanigadda Mandal, would submit that in fact, the petitioner was advised to make a mutation application in Form VI-A at Mee-seva as per the Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules,

Page 3 of 4

SRSJ WP No.4447/2024

The representation made by the petitioner is not in consonance with the Rules, 1989.

¶40

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would^submit that the petitioner will make proper application to the authority.

¶41

In view of the instructions of the learned Tahsildar, Avanigadda Mandal, coupled with the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going^intoother aspects of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make proper application through Mee-seva. If such an application is filed, the respondent authorities^{shallconsider} the said application, strictly in accordance with law.^Nocosts.

¶42

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall

¶43

To,

¶44

stand dismissed. SD/- K. KASIRAO ACHARi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Mw-' SECTION OFFICER

¶45

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

¶46

The Tahsildar,, Avanigadda Mandal, Krishna District.

¶47

OneCCto SRI. THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Advocate [L/nUUj

¶48

GP FOR REVENUE .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

¶49

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.4447 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Simhadri Nancharayya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simhadri Nancharayya, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neela Rabart Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Peddada Narayan Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ganduri.Tirupatamma Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

P Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mule Jogayya at Mule Jogi Reddy Vs the State of Ap