Sri Athipatla Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SRI ATHIPATLA KRISHNA, S/O. JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC.. BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.405, 4TH FLOOR, VENKATESWARA PARADISE APARTMENTS BESIDE BHARATH PETROL BUNK, NEAR AYYAPPASWAMI TEMPLE, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶13

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 0/O. COLLECTORATE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (RB ANDR) AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND THE REVISION AUTHORITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 0/O. COLLECTORATE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

2

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, , AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, DHARANIKOTA VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRCIT.

¶19

SMT PUTTI INDIRA, S/O. RAJESH, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC.. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DHARANIKOTA VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶20

SMT VADLAMUDI RATNA, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED. MAJOR, OCC.. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O.FLAT NO. SF-5, NAGARJUNA APARTMENTS, 16/5, ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶21

ATHIPATLA KISHORE, S/O. VINAYAKA RAO AGED 45 YEARS, OCE.. EMPLOYEE, RIO. F-6, 2ND FLOOR, AMULYA TOWERS, CHANDRAMOULINAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records in respect of the order dated 28-12-2020 passed in RC.No.2917/2020-D5 by the 3rd respondent acted as Revision Authority with pre judge notion without jurisdiction wherein set aside the orders in R.Dis.No.5266/2018-A dated 22-06-2020 by the 4th respondents confirmed the orders in RC.N0.767/2018-B dated 28-112018 by 5th respondent accepting my application for mutation in respect of land for an extent of Ae.2-18 cents in Sy.No.102/2A2 and Ac.1.65 cents in Sy.No.10212C1 situated at Dharnikota Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District without call for the records by directing to kept the subject land in dispute category in web land revenue records as mentioned in notices dated 26-09-2020, 03-10-2020 and 22-10-2020 by the 3rd Respondent is arbitrary, illegal. void abi nitio and violative principles of natural justice and violative of under section 9 of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar passbook Act,1971 and Rules 1989 apart from violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21, 300-A of the constitution of India and set aside the orders dated 28-122020 in RC.No.2917/2020-D5 passed by the 3rd respondent.

¶24

3

¶25

Consequently direct the respondents to suspend the operation of the orders dated 28-12-2020 forthwith pending consideration of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶27

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 respondents not to interfere with the subject land for an extent of Ac.2-18 cents in Sy.No.102/2A2 and Ac.1.65 cents in Sy.No.102/2C1 situated at Dharnikota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District by suspending order dated 28-122020 passed in RC.No.2917/2020-D5 by the 3rd respondent pending consideration of the above writ petition by virtue of the injunction orders dated 11-10-2018 in IA.No.1 of 2018 in AS.No.1720 of 2018 (as granted until further orders dated 10-12-2018) by this Hon'ble Court on the subject property pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and pass

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶29

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 vacate the interim order granted on 22-03-2021 in W.P.No.6632 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶34

2.CHILUKURI NARENDRA BABU

¶35

3.SUBBA REDDY SANIKOMMU

¶36

4.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶37

4

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

¶40

This writ petition was filed questioning the order passed by the Revisional Authority/ the 3^rd respondent dated 28.12.2020 in Rc.No.2917/2020-D5 allowing the revision. The petitioner herein is the 2^nd respondent before the Revisional Authority/ the 3^rd respondent and the 7^th respondent herein is the revision petitioner before the Revisional Authority/ the 3^rd respondent.

¶41

Aggrieved by the orders of the 4^th respondent in R.Dis.No.5266/ 2018-A dated 22.06.2018, the 7^th respondent herein filed the above said revision before the 3^rd respondent as the RDO/ the 4^th respondent vide order dated 22.06.2020 confirmed the orders passed by the 5^th respondent/ the Tahsildar in Rc.No.767/2018-B dated 28.11.2018 accepting the application of the petitioner herein for mutation of his name in revenue records against the lands to an extent of Ac.2.18 cents in Sy.No.102/2A2 and Ac.1.65 cents in Sy.No.102/2C1 situated at Dharnikota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District basing on the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur in Rc.No.10672/2015A, dated 12.05.2016.

¶42

5

¶43

The main grievance of the 7^th respondent as the revision petitioner before the 3^rd respondent was that the 4^th respondent/ the RDO/ the Appellate Authority did not insist the Tahasildar/ 5^th respondent to file their objections, without issuing any notice to the revision petitioner/ 7^th respondent herein, without affording personal hearing and without furnishing any copy of the reply field by the 2^nd respondent therein/ writ petitioner herein, the above said order dated 22.06.2020 was passed by the RDO/ the 4^th respondent herein.

¶44

In other words, it was the grievance of the 7^th respondent herein as the revision petitioner before the 3^rd respondent that the principles of natural justice has not been followed while dismissing the appeal by the 4^th respondent/ Appellate Authority dated 22.06.2020. The best course ought to have been adopted by the Revisional Authority/ the 3^rd respondent herein is that the matter should have been remanded back to the 4^th respondent/ Appellate Authority for consideration of the matter afresh on its own merits against the orders passed by the Tahsildar/ 5^th respondent herein dated 28.11.2018. But the 3^rd respondent went into the merits of the case and passed a detailed order allowing the revision beyond the scope of the grounds urged by the revision petitioner/ the 7^th respondent herein.

¶45

Since the perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority dated

¶46

22.06.2020 does not disclose any findings on the merits of the case,

¶47

6

¶48

this court deems it fit and appropriate to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority/ the 4^th respondent herein to consider the appeal preferred by the 7^th respondent herein afresh by conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with law giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned including the petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and upon consideration of the matter on merits and upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken in the said appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. For the purpose of early disposal of the appeal on merits, both the parties and all the parties concerned shall cooperate with the Appellate Authority. Enabling the Appellate Authority to proceed with the matter, the order of the 3^rd respondent passed in the above said revision case No.2917/2020-D5 dated 28.12.2020 is set aside herewith.

¶49

It is open for the parties concerned to file additional pleadings if any before the Appellate Authority bringing into the notice about the subsequent developments if any and pendency of civil suits if any. Pending the appeal, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the mutation of the names of the parties for the subject lands. Subject to the outcome of the appeal, appropriate orders shall be passed with respect to the subject lands. It is made clear that, this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶50

7

¶51

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim Order if any

¶52

deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

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

¶54

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 02.09.2025 NNN

Sri Athipatla Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri Athipatla Krishna 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

Vyaparla Narendra Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Paidi Yesu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Janardhana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gogulamanda Venkata Narasamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tammina Raghuramudu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M.K. Kusuma Bai Vs The Tahasildar