Dismissed

Mummidi Veera Sai Satyanarayanamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Aug 2012WP/24879/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed this writ petition because the petitioner's claim involves allegations of forgery and factual disputes regarding property transfer. The matter requires a civil court proceeding or police investigation, and no direction can be granted in this writ petition before any enquiry is conducted.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Mummidi Veera Sai Satyanarayanamma Vs Government… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24879 of 2012

¶3

13.8.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mummidi Veera Sai Satyanarayanamma, W/o.Padmanabham

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

AND Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Secretary (Stamps and Registration Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad And others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.24879 of 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation made by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.1.00 covered by Survey No.68/1 situated at Veeravaram Village of Kirlampudi Mandal in East Godavari District. It is stated that the fifth respondent has

¶14

created forged gift deed of the petitioner on 29.4.2010 and got transferred the property in his name. It is stated that the fifth respondent again transferred the aforesaid land in favour of his daughter by way of settlement deed which is illegal.

¶15

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of representing the same, no action has been taken by the third respondent-Sub-Registrar. It is further stated that a complaint is also filed before the fourth respondent with regard to forgery by which the fifth respondent got transferred the property of the petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material on record. In this writ petition, precisely the petitioner is seeking declaration to consider his representation and declare the settlement deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent as illegal. Though it is alleged that the fifth respondent has transferred the aforesaid property by way of gift deed, the said donee is not even made as party to the proceedings. In any event, the questions whether the fifth respondent acquired the land by valid conveyance deed or not and the gift/settlement deed executed by the fifth respondent in favour of his daughter is valid or not, cannot be examined in this writ petition. In view of the factual dispute complaining forgery, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court to prove the same or else to pursue his complaint before the concerned Police. But even before any enquiry/investigation is made on the complaint, no direction can be granted in this writ petition.

¶17

The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶18

________________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶19

August 13, 2012 YS

Mummidi Veera Sai Satyanarayanamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mummidi Veera Sai Satyanarayanamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anumolu Gandhi Ramu, Vs The Sub Registrar

Challagulla Indira Devi Vs The Sub Registrar, Chintalapudi West

Teneti Prabhavathi, W/o late Narasimha Vs The District Collector (La)

Jonna Babu Vs The District Collector

G.Subba Rao, Vs P.M.Naidu

Kalavakolanu Anji Ganesh, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh