Dismissed

Tekumatla Pullamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Nov 2013WP/33407/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner apprehending that a revenue officer would mutate a sale deed allegedly void under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act. The court held the petition premature as mutation proceedings were pending, granting the petitioner liberty to raise objections there.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to raise objections in pending mutation proceedings. W.P.M.P.No.41556 of 2013 disposed of as infructuous.

Tekumatla Pullamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33407 of 2013

¶3

21.11.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Tekumatla Pullamma

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

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

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Lalitha Kamesh

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶12

Counsel for respondent No.4: ---

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed with the apprehension that respondent No.2 before whom mutation proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No.4 are stated to be pending, may consider the registered sale deed bearing No.1297 dated 04.04.2000 allegedly executed by the petitioner’s husband in favour of respondent No.4.

¶16

At the hearing, Sri P.Lalitha Kamesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.4 and others filed W.P.No.32421 of 2011 for a direction to the Sub-Registrar concerned to register the proposed sale deeds executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the third parties and that the implead application filed by the petitioner herein in the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that she has no locus standi. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.4 has approached respondent No.2 for mutating his name and that in the said proceedings, respondent No.4 is relying upon the registered sale deed No.1297 dated 04.04.2000, which is wholly void in view of Section 14(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

¶17

In my opinion, the writ petition is wholly premature, as according to the petitioner mutation proceedings are pending before respondent No.2. She is entitled to raise all the legally permissible objections therein on the validity of the registered sale deed on which respondent No.4 is allegedly placing reliance. If the petitioner suffers any adverse order in such proceedings, she will be entitled to avail further remedies.

¶18

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

¶19

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41556 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

__________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶21

21^st November, 2013 GHN

Tekumatla Pullamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tekumatla Pullamma v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deva Reddy Rajashekar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ambati Rama Lakshmi, W/o Venkat Reddy Vs The Tahsildar

Butta Hospitalities Private Limited Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Namindla Jayapal, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rep by its Secretary Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Smt.Durgaben Patel, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh