Dismissed

Bandi Brahmaiah, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Oct 2013WP/30783/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in disposing of an application for resumption of assigned agricultural land under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act. The Court declined to issue mandamus due to the three-decade lapse, relying on precedent that such power cannot become a bane to bona fide purchasers after unreasonable delays without specific fraud.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus was declined; Writ Petition dismissed; Interim relief petition dismissed as infructuous.

Bandi Brahmaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30783 of 2013

¶3

Date:28.10.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bandi Brahmaiah, S/o Narasaiah

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

And:

¶8

The State of A.P., Reptd by its District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District and three others.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner, who claims to be the legal representative of one Bandi Bakkaiah, an alleged assignee of Ac.1.71 cents in Survey No.113/3A of Dubagunta Village, Kandukur Mandal, Prakasam District, filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that his petition filed under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) on 24.06.2013 before respondent No.2 is not being disposed of.

¶14

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that his grand father was assigned the above-mentioned land in the year 1970; that respondent No.4 is in possession of the said assigned land based on a fraudulent settlement deed, dated 19.06.1984, allegedly executed by the petitioner’s grandfather; and that, therefore, he has approached respondent No.2 under Section 2 of the Act

¶15

for resumption of the land. The petitioner has not explained any reason whatsoever for remaining quiet for nearly three decades before approaching respondent No.2.

¶16

This Court in Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per LRs Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor^[1] , on a consideration of relevant case law, held as under: - “The exercise of power under Section 4, which is intended to protect the interests of gullible assignees shall not be allowed to become nightmare to the equally gullible purchasers, who purchase the assigned lands out of sheer ignorance of the prohibition contained in the Act and the consequences of such purchases. In their anxiety to do justice to one section of the society, the authorities cannot harm the interests of another section by subjecting them to long process of litigation many years after the assigned land is purchased. In other words, a legislation, which is a boon for one section of the society, shall not become a bane for others, in its purported implementation.

¶17

On the basis of the abundance of authority, I am of the considered opinion that even while exercising power under a statute such as the Act in the instant case, the authorities cannot act mechanically ignoring the long delay in either the aggrieved party approaching the authorities or initiating suo motu proceedings. In either case, unless there are proper and sufficient reasons such as blatant fraud played by the purchaser of the assigned land and the same which despite due diligence did not come to light, the authorities cannot initiate proceedings beyond reasonable period after the assigned land is sold. Lest the remedy will become worse than the disease.”

¶18

Ex facie, the purported petition filed by the petitioner, thirty years after the alleged transfer, is in the teeth of the above judgment. Therefore, this Court declines to issue any Mandamus to respondent No.2 as prayed in the Writ Petition.

¶19

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38219 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 28^th October, 2013 DR

¶22

[1] 2009(1) ALT 424

Bandi Brahmaiah, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandi Brahmaiah, v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damacherla Purnanand , Purnaiah, Vs Damacherla Srujana

Smt. Junjuru Varalakshmi, Vs The District Collect

Doppalapudi Vajramma Vs The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed, S/o. Mr. Fathe Mohammed Vs a. P. State Wakf Board

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy Vs Y Narasimha Reddy

Smt. Shameem Sultana, Vs The District Collector