Disposed

Rosily Tholath v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Apr 2024WP/8126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the 3rd respondent's failure to consider her appeal under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act. The parties settled on transmitting the appeal to the District Revenue Officer for disposal per law.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to transmit the appeal to the District Revenue Officer within four weeks for disposal within two months.

Rosily Tholath Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8126 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rosily Tholath, W/o Surendra Babu, Hindu Aged about 74 years,R. Occ Housewife, R/o. D.No. 13-395, Vinayaka Nagar, New Railway Gate, Renigunta, Chittoor District

¶9

...Petitioner(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Tirupathi District at Tirupathi

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti, Tirupathi^District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd

¶17

Respondent in not considering the appeal vide Roc 1160/2020 dated 1112- 2020 file U/s 5(5) of the A.P. rights in Land and pattadhar Pass Book act 1971 without any notice or fallowing due process of law as illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and violation of Art. 14, 21 and 300 (A) of constitution ( of India besides being violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner appeal vide Roc 1160/2020 dated 11-12- 2020 and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the 4th respondent to issue the pattadar pass Books and Title deeds by duly making necessary entries in the revenue record in respect of the land to an extent of Ac 4-21 cents in Sy.No.18/IB Kurakalava Revenue Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI DHARANEESH Rep. SRI.^SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER;

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.8126 OF 2024

¶24

Between:

¶25

Rosily Tholath, W/o Surendra Babu, Hindu, Aged about 74 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o D.No. 13-395, Vinayaka Nagar, New Railway Gate, Renigunta, Chittoor District.

¶26

... Petitioner

¶27

And

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District and three others. . Respondents Counsel for the petitioner ; Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy K Counsel for respondents ; GP for Revenue

¶29

. Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the appeal filed by^{thepetitioner} under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred^{toas'theAct’),} as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

SRS, J W.P.No.8126of2024

¶34

Heard Sri Dharaneesh learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalva, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the respondents.

¶35

At the hearing learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, while not disputing the pendency of appeal on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti would submit that, by amended Act 15 of 2022, the appeal will be transmitted to the District Revenue Officer, Tirupati, and the District Revenue Officer will dispose of the appeal as per law.

¶36

Given submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsels, directing the respondent No. 3 to take steps for transmission of appeal vide Roc:1160/2020 to the District Revenue Officer, Tirupati within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the learned District Revenue Officer, Tirupati shall dispose of the appeal strictly as per law, within two (02) months by

¶37

p Page 3 of 4

¶38

SRSJ W.P.No.8126of 2024

¶39

issuing notice to the petitioner and others concerned. There shall be

¶40

no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- V. SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECJf^N^FFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶47

The District Collector, Tirupathi District.

¶48

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti, Tirupathi^District.

¶49

The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶50

One CC to SRI. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies NSV

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8126 of 2024

X 17 IAN 20?5
Co/;
%^ . Curreni oecuon *//

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Rosily Tholath v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosily Tholath 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

Petlu Durgalu, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Vallamsetty Venkataratnamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vallum Somasekhar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Madiga Pedda Pullamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Allampalli Supriya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kusam Ramireddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh