This was a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner challenged the apprehended deletion of land extent from his pattadar passbook. The court held the petition premature as there was no overt action or proceedings by the revenue authorities, dismissing it without 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13273 of 2009
Between:
Ambakam Selvam S/o.Subrahmanya Reddy R/o.Karur Village, Tada Mandal, Nellore District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to delete the extent of land admeasuring Ac.1-18 cents, in Sy.No.110-3 of Karur Village, Tada Mandal, Nellore District, from the petitioner's Pattadar Pass Book as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.CHANDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.13273 OF 2009
ORAL ORDER
The writ petition is premature.
The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent is trying to delete an extent of Ac.1.18 cents of land in Sy.No.110/3 of Karur village, Tada Mandal, Nellore District from the petitioner’s extent as recorded in the pattedar passbooks issued to him.
The petitioner claims to be owner of an extent of Ac.10.97 cents in Sy.Nos.80/4, 271/6, 803, 110/1, 110/3, 153/2 and 86/4 of karur village. These are ancestral lands. On his father’s demise, pattedar passbooks were issued in the petitioner’s favour in 1998. The 4th respondent who is his junior paternal uncle’s son is said to be claiming an extent of Ac.1.18 cents of land in Sy.No.110/3 of the village, which is recorded in the petitioner’s name in the pattedar pass books given to him. No formal notice is said to have been issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner as yet.
The petitioner apprehends that the 3rd respondent would without any formal process or notice to him delete an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.110/3 of Karur village from the petitioner’s holding and grant pattadar passbooks to the 4th respondent in respect of the said land.
No overt action or proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent is pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. If the 3rd respondent passes any such clandestine order without following the due process of law under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971, the said order would be a nullity apart from 3rd respondent exposing himself to severe disciplinary action besides possible criminal process by the petitioner. At any rate, there is no basis for the petitioner’s apprehension except some vague roumers in Karur village, which are not adequate justification for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed as premature. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies if any formal action is taken by the 3rd respondent. No costs.
_________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J
6th *JULY 2009 TSNR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus against the revenue authorities for apprehended deletion of land extent based on vague rumors absent any overt action?
Whether the petitioner's apprehension regarding the deletion of land from their pattadar passbook without any formal notice or process justifies Article 226 intervention?
Whether the present petition is premature due to lack of overt action or proceedings by the third respondent?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ambakam Selvam S/o.Subrahmanya Reddy
The District Collector, Nellore
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur
The Tahsildar, Tada Mandal, Nellore District
Ambakam Yelumalai S/o.late Muruga Reddy
GODA RAGHURAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
