Allowed

C.Munirajulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC31 Oct 2013WP/28591/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondent to restore the petitioner's name in the record of rights and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds for the subject land, emphasizing that avoiding unnecessary litigation justifies such relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's name restored in record of rights; pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in one month; costs of Rs.5,000 awarded.

C.Munirajulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28591 of 2013

¶2

Dated 3 1 st October, 2013

Between:

C.Munirajulu

…Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary (Revenue Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Indrasena Reddy

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that despite the repeated requests of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has not been issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds to the petitioner in respect of Acs.3.49 cents of land in Survey No.569/3 of Kuntrapakam Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District (for short ‘the subject land’). The father of the petitioner, late C.Venkatasubbaiah, was initially assigned the subject land on 15.09.1967. The original assignee died in the year 1979. Thereafter, the petitioner and his elder brother cultivated the subject land and in family partition, the subject land fell to the share of the petitioner. Thereupon, on the application of the petitioner, his name was mutated in the record of rights and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to him by respondent No.3.

¶14

However, on 25.01.2005, a notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner failed to bring the land into cultivation from the date of assignment and thereby

¶15

violated condition No.2 of the patta conditions. He has accordingly called upon the petitioner to show-cause why the DKT patta shall not be cancelled and the land be resumed. Not being satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation, respondent No.3 has passed a resumption order on 10.05.2005 purportedly under the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 22.06.2005. As no interim order was granted in the said appeal, the petitioner questioned the resumption order in W.P.No.26790 of 2007. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on the finding that the provisions of the Act would apply only in cases where the assigned land was transferred in violation of the provisions of the Act and that as no such allegation was made, the provisions of the Act could not be invoked by respondent No.3 for resumption of the land. After disposal of the said writ petition, respondent No.2 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the resumption order, dated 10.05.2005, on the ground that the same has become infructuous in view of the order of this Court allowing W.P.No.26790 of 2007.

¶16

The petitioner averred that after disposal of the appeal, he has approached respondent No.3 for restoring his name in the record of rights and for issue of pattadar pass books and title deeds. As no action was taken thereon, he has sent a representation on 06.09.2013 through registered post. As no action was taken even thereon by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶17

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) who received instructions from respondent No.3 has not disputed any of the above facts.

¶18

Indeed, with the allowing of the writ petition as far back as 13.12.2007, the appeal filed before respondent No.2 itself has become infructuous. As the resumption order was set aside by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to be restored to the same position as he was prior

¶19

to the passing of the order of resumption. Even assuming that respondent No.3 has awaited formal disposal of the infructuous appeal by respondent No.2, there is absolutely no justification for him not to grant pattadar pass books and title deeds atleast after disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2 on 09.11.2012. The petitioner is unnecessarily driven to this Court by incurring avoidable expenditure.

¶20

As the respondents are not disputing the entitlement of the petitioner for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.3 to restore the name of the petitioner into the record of rights and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

For subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary and avoidable litigation, respondent No.3 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from out of his own personal funds to the petitioner.

¶22

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35472 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶23

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶24

31^st October, 2013 VGB

C.Munirajulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Munirajulu v. The State 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

Mustafa Ali Vs The State of a. P

Chakilam Lalitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Samdurala Venu Gopal Rao, Vs The Govt., of A.P.

Sanjeevarayudu Boya S/o.Naganna, Vs The Assistant Project Director Dwama Kurnool

Sri Bobbara Sundara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal