Disposed

B Anjanamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/9434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging delay in a revenue revision. The court directed the Joint Collector to decide the pending revision within three months and dispensed with notice to the fifth respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to dispose of RC No. 2933/2018/E1 within three months; notice to respondent No. 5 dispensed with; no costs.

B Anjanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

I N

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction) ^
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL
O %
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR X
PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9434 OF 2094

¶5

Between:

¶6

B. Anjanamma, W/o. (late) B.Govindappa, Aged 69 years, R/o. Idukallu Village, H/o. Yatakallu Village, Setturu Mandal, Ananthapur^District. ...PETITIONER AND

¶7

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

¶8

The Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapur District.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurgam, Ananthapur^District. 4. The Tahsildar, Settur Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶10

Boya Akkamrha, W/o. Boya Chittappa, R/o. Idukallu, Yatakallu Village, Setturu Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

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 any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nd nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 2 respondent in not disposing of the revision petition in RC No. 2933/2018/E1 filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 21 & 300-A of nd Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 respondent to dispose of the revision petition in RC No. 2933/2018/E1 fiied by the petitioner by passing appropriate orders forthwith .

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated iathe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be ^pleased to direct the 2"^ respondent to dispose of the revision petition in • '.iRC No. 2933/2018/El filed by the petitioner by passing appropriate orders forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.R.SUDHAKAR REP SRI. V. VINOD K REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: ASST.GP FOR^REVENUE

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.9434 of 2024

¶21

W/o Late B. Govindappa, aged B. Anjanamma R/o Idukallu Village, H/o Yatakallu 69 years, r^* • * Village, Setturu Mandal, Ananthapur District. Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and four others.

¶22

... Petitioner

¶23

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of^respondent No.2 in not disposing of the revision petition filed^{bythepetitioner} vide RC No.2933/2018/E1, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

Heard Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel representing Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel or the petitioner^andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶25

Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with, since no adverse order affecting her rights and interest, is^passed.

¶26

Page 2 of 3 SRSJ WPNo.9434 of 2024

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant^to the revision filed by the petitioner under BSO 15 P^18readwith Act 9 of 77 on the file of respondent No.2 notice was^issuedtothe petitioner as well as respondent No.5, on 03.01.2023^askingthem to appear before respondent No.2 on 28.01.2023. However, the revision is not disposed of thereafter.

¶28

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions endorses pendency of the revision and^submitsthat Joint Collector will dispose of the revision within^threemonths.

¶29

In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader, without going into other aspects, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondent^No.2to dispose of the subject revision, strictly in accordance^withlaw as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three^monthsfrom date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs

¶30

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

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Distnct.

¶37

The Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapur District.

¶38

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurgam, Ananthapur^District.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Settur Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶40

Boya Akkamrha, W/o. Boya Chittappa, R/o. Idukallu,^{YatakalluVillage} Setturu Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶41

One CC to Sri. V. Vinod K Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

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

¶43

Three CD Copies. gi

¶44

high court

¶45

DATEb:24®4/2024

¶46

ORDER WP.No.9434 of 2024

¶47

H-:
C-i,
2 R JUN 202'!
GLrrtrti

¶48

disposing of the writ petition WITHOUT COSTS

B Anjanamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Anjanamma 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

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

T Jayamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pothula Subba Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh