Dismissed

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Nov 2013WP/32822/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a land assignee challenging inaction in cancelling a subsequent assignment of the same land. The court held that no mandamus could be issued and directed the petitioner to avail statutory appeal and revision remedies, subsequently disposing of an interim relief petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to avail remedies of appeal and revision; interim relief petition disposed as infructuous.

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32822 of 2013

¶3

18.11.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6: Assistant Government

¶11

Pleader for Revenue

¶12

Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5: --

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2013 for cancellation of the assignment granted to respondent Nos.3 to 5 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.60 cents in survey No.17 of Devarayapalli - I Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District, (for short ‘the subject land’) and their further action in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land as illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was assigned the subject land in the year 1997 and that an entry in that regard has been made in the relevant register. The petitioner also pleaded that in pursuance of the assignment made to him, he was granted pattadar passbook and title deed in the year 1997 itself. It is the further case of the petitioner that without cancelling the assignment made to him, respondent No.2 granted assignment to respondent Nos.3 to 5 in respect of the subject land and that feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.6 on 16.09.2013 for cancellation of the said assignment and restoring the land to him.

¶17

Under Para 15(15) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal if he feels aggrieved by the grant of assignment to respondent Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner is also provided with a further revision in the event if he is unsuccessful in the appeal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on the representation allegedly made by the petitioner to respondent No.6, no

¶18

mandamus can be issued to the said respondent. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to avail the remedies of appeal and also revision, if need be.

¶19

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40821 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

__________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶22

18 November, 2013 GHN

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintam Reddi Venkata Subbaiah, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Zaheera Begum Vs The State Government of A.P.

K. Venkat Rao Vs The Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Sri J.L.Narasimham, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Tahasildar

S.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, Vs The Government of A.P.