Allowed

Smt. B. Subbamma v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Mar 2011WP/6080/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal to mutate lands in revenue records despite a confirmed order granting Ryotwari patta under the Estates Abolition Act. The Court held that confirmed orders preclude land from being classified as Government land and directed mutation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent to incorporate the petitioner's name in village revenue accounts for the subject lands within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Smt. B. Subbamma Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6080 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Questioning the action of the fourth respondent in not mutating the lands of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.3-40 cents in Sy.No.127/2 situated in Kothapalem village, Renigunta mandal, Chottor district, the present writ petition is filed.

¶5

It is stated that the petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 11 (a) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, (for brevity ‘the Act’) for grant of Ryothwari patta in respect of the subject agricultural land. The said claim petition was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, vide order dated 04-02-1987. The aforementioned order was challenged by the District Collector and the same was dismissed by the Director of Settlements by order dated 20-081999. The aforementioned order was confirmed by the Commissioner on 19-01-2010 in the revision preferred by the District Collector.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the orders of the Settlement Officer were confirmed by the revisional authority, the authorities are not mutating the subject lands in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner.

¶7

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the lands in question are Government lands and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have mutated his name in the revenue accounts in respect of the subject lands.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that once the Settlement Officer has allowed the claim petition filed

¶9

by the petitioner under Section 11(a) of the Act vide order dated 04-02-1987, which was confirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 20-08-1999 and therefore, it cannot be said that the lands in possession of the petitioner are Government lands.

¶10

In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed. The fourth respondent is directed to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the village revenue accounts in respect of the subject lands, without insisting for any instructions from the District Collector, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

March 21, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. B/o.Pn

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.6080 of 2011

¶15

March 21, 2011

¶16

Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. B/o.Pn

Smt. B. Subbamma v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. Subbamma v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Neuland Laboratories Ltd. Vs Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Prl Secretary and 3 Others

M.Sadanand Vs The Governmentof Andhra Pradesh

A.Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o a.L.v.Narayana Reddy, Vs The District collector, Ysr District.

Gudise Ganganna, Vs The Thasildar

Smt. Valegada Paramma Vs The Goverment of Andhra Pradesh

Sardar Devender Singh, Vs Tahsildar and Deputy Collector