Dismissed

Thota Hanumantha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Apr 2024WP/8444/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the action of the respondents for not implementing orders directing proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, and sought cancellation of a sale deed. The court found the claims misconceived upon review of facts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Thota Hanumantha Rao Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8444 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thota Hanumantha Rao, S/o Sivaramaiah, Aged about 73 years, Agriculturist R/o. D.No. 7-9-1 A, Jakkavari Street, Perala, Chirala, Bapatia District (Erstwhile Prakasam)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{SecretaryRevenue} Department Secretariat at Velgapudi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Bapatia District, AP.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer/RDO, Chirala Revenue Division, Bapatia District

¶14

The Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal, Chirala Bapatia^District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature writ of mandamus, declaring the action of 4^^^respondent in not implementing the orders of the 2 nd respondent vide Proceedings in E5/280874/2021 dated 09-07-2021, which was issued basing^onthereport of the then 4*^ respondent in Rc B/303/2020 dated 31-03-^2021,andalso not considering the legal notices got issued by the^{petitioneron22-02-2023}

¶17

¶18

and 07-10-2023, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional^{andconsequently} direct the 2 nd respondent to take action on the 4'*^ respondent for not implementing his order passed in proceedings E5/280874/2021 dated 09-07-2021 by considering the legal notice dated 22-02-2023 and 07-10-2023 and also direct the 4'^ respondent to implement^{ofordersofthe} 2^^ respondent passed in proceedings E5/280874/2021^{dated09-07-2021.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2'"'^ respondent take action^{onthe4'^respondentfor} not implementing his order passed in Proceedings E5/280874/2021^dated 09-07-2021, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. N RAVI PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.8444 OF 2024

¶27

Thota Hanumantha Rao, S/o Sivaramaiah, Aged about 73 years, Agriculturist, R/o. D.No.7-9-1A, Jakkavari Street, Perala, Chirala, Bapatia District (Erstwhile Prakasam).

¶28

... Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and three others.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.Ravi Prasad

¶33

Counsel for respondents ; GP for Revenue

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Heard Ms. Akhila, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned^Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

¶36

the 4 th 2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent in not implementing the order of the 2"*^^{respondentvide}

¶37

Page 2 of 5

¶38

SRS, J WP No.8444/2024

¶39

Proceedings in E5/280874/2021 dated 09.07.2021, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2-57 cents^{inSy.No.252/1of} Pandillapalli Village, Chirala Revenue Division, Bapatla District District) vide Patta No.84/1688 dated (erstwhile Prakasam 31.03.1975. One Avula Jyothi, fabricated the document vide Document No.1405/1984, dated 21.04.1984. The petitioner made nd representation on 09.11.2020 before the 2"" respondent. The 2 respondent, in turn, directed the 3 respondent to conduct an inquiry. The 3'^ respondent, in turn, directed the^{4‘^respondentto} submit a report. Based upon the report of the 4^ respondent, the 2 nd respondent directed the 4’"’ respondent to initiate^{actionasperthe} Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)^Rules, 2007 (for short “the Act”).

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that^theletter addressed by the District Collector to the Tahsildar is to the effect that the Tahsildar shall take steps to cancel the sale deed^dated 21.04.1984 vide document No.1405/1984.

¶42

Page 3 of 5

¶43

SRS, J WP No.8444/2024

¶44

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions of the Tahsildar would submit that pursuant to the communication of the District Collector, proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 were initiated. The petitioner, in fact, filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala against the order of the Tahsildar. The Revenue Divisional Officer vi vide Proceedings Rc.Dt(KRRC)/526/2023 , dated 25.01.2024 disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar directing to conduct the inquiry. The Tahsildar will conduct the inquiry and pass orders.

¶45

As seen from Ex. P-5 letter filed by the petitioner addressed by the District Collector to the Tahsildar, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and to submit a report. Since the proceedings were initiated pursuant to the letter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar failed to take steps to cancel the document, in the opinion of this Court is misconceived.

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

SRS, J WP No.8444/2024 .

¶48

In view of the events referred to supra, this Court^doesnotfind any merits in the writ petition. The Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

as to 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order costs.

¶50

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

¶51

stand closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

Sd/- M SURYANADH REDDY deputy registrar SEtnON OFFICER

¶54

/ /

¶55

To,

¶56

One CC to SRI. N RAVI PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]. 2 Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶57

Three CD copies.

KKK

( I

• ^

HIGH COURT

DATED: 18/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8444 of 2024

“grANDH^%
' * m
2 7 NOV 202*1 CO
Current sectton

¶66

DISMISSING THE W.P

Thota Hanumantha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Hanumantha Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kandukuru Ghouse Peer Vs the State of Ap

T.Vijay Kumar, S/o. T.Bali Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dungala Yerra Patrudu Vs P.Krishna Murthy

Annam Suvarchana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y Adi Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nalisetty Nagabushanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh