In a writ petition challenging the resumption of assigned land order on grounds of laches due to delay in approaching the court, the High Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to be more vigilant before approaching higher authorities.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8583 of 2007
Dated:24.04.2007
Between:
Smt.Guduru Asha.
… Petitioner
AND
The Mandal Revenue Officer and another.
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.8583 of 2007
ORDER:
The petitioner herein purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.61 cents in R.S.Nos.191/2B, 191/4 and 194/21 situated at Surampally Village of Krishna District, allegedly, after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Gannavaram, first respondent herein. In 2005 action was initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), on an allegation that the subject land was assigned to M/s.Bhukya Keera, Ch.Prasad and G.Subharam. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.07.2005. The petitioner submitted explanation. After considering the explanation, by proceedings bearing Rc.No.C/89/2005, dated 18.08.2005, the first respondent ordered resumption of the land for contravention of the provisions under Section 3(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, being Appeal No.4 of 2006. She also prayed for interim orders. By an order dated 30.12.2006, the second respondent rejected prayer for stay of the operation of proceedings of the MRO. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is dispossessed pending the appeal before the second respondent, even if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, it would be useless. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), however, points out that when the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the stay
application in December 2006, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition after lapse of four months, and therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere in the matter.
After giving anxious consideration to the background of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel, this Court is convinced that in a matter like this, the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant in approaching higher authorities to prevent the original authority from enforcing its order. The petitioner took four months time to approach this Court. The delay and laches, therefore, would not warrant any exercise of jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioner. This Court, however, observes that the Revenue Divisional Officer may dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.04.2007 Note: Issue C.C by 26.04.2007. B/o. vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed after a delay of four months is a fit case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt.Guduru Asha
The Mandal Revenue Officer
another
V.V.S.Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
