Boddukola Jayamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE A P SCHEDULE CASTE COOP FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, THE A.P SCHEDULE CASTE CO-OP FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, S C S C S LTD, ELURU,

¶17

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AT ELURU

¶18

THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHINTALAPUDI WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶19

2

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 tobe pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus by declaring that the action of the respondents in endorsing on the back side of petitioner's sale deed Loan waived. This is a Govt sponsored scheme, cannot be sold without having any authority of law or any contractual obligation and including petitioner's property admeasuring Ac. 0.64 cents in Sy No. 204/6 of Chintampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District in prohibitory properties list is illegal arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's property from prohibitory properties list in the interest of Justice and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

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 pleased to direct the 5th respondent to receive and process the document to be presented by the petitioner for registration during pendency of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.M P V N V SASTRI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

2.GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶32

This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in endorsing on the back side of petitioner’s sale deed “loan waived. This is a government sponsored scheme, cannot be sold” without having any authority of law or any contractual obligation and including petitioner’s property admeasuring Ac.0.64 cents in Sy.No.2046 of Chintampalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District in prohibited properties list.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this writ petition was filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in placing the subject land in the prohibited properties list under Section 22A(1)(a)(b)&(d) as shown in the annexure filed at serial No.491 with respect to the Sy.No. 204-6 to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents as L.D. Patta with remarks “Section 3 of 9/77 Act”.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that as per the guidelines of the Purchase of Agriculture Land Scheme for SC Landless Women Agriculture Labourers issued by the 3^rd respondent-corporation, the lands provided under the Land Purchase Scheme are prohibited from

¶35

4

¶36

transfer/ sale/ alienation and it is intended for the socio-economic development of the poor families. If any transaction occurred in contrary to the above, such transaction will become null and void.

¶37

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased the subject land through registered sale deed dated 31.12.1998 bearing document No.3562/1998 from one her vendor Smt. Gadiraju Vasanthakumari. The sale consideration was provided under beneficiary scheme to the petitioner as mortgagee. Since the subject land is now placed under prohibited list, she is unable to alienate the subject property and insistence of any clause or guideline issued by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 is unreasonable.

¶38

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 submits that, the 5^th respondent is the appropriate authority to take a decision for the deletion of any property from the prohibited list and if the petitioner approaches the said authority by way of a representation and the same will be considered following the due procedure by the said authority.

¶39

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make representation to the respondent Nos.5, 6, 3 & 4 enclosing all the necessary documents in support of her claim to delete the subject property from the prohibited list within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the

¶40

5

¶41

respondent Nos.3 & 4 can also file their objections if any before the 5^th respondent within another period of four (4) weeks. Upon receipt of the representation of the petitioner and objections from the respondent Nos.3 & 4, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter by the 5^th respondent.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶45

11.09.2025 NNN

Boddukola Jayamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddukola Jayamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Nagendar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Polamuri Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Aslam Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kovvuri Surya Bhakaram Vs the State of Ap

B. Lakshminarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddypogu Mary Sampath Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh