The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-issuance of a digital pahani for 2012-13. It held that the refusal was justified as a pending land revision by a third party rendered the issue sub judice.
The writ petition was dismissed and a related Writ Petition was disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.37536 of 2013
Dated 2 3 rd December, 2013
Between:
Kalagara Suvarchala Devi
…Petitioner
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing pahani for the year 2012-13 to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
A perusal of the letter in Rc.No.B/981/2013, dated 26.09.2013, addressed by respondent No.5 to respondent No.2 shows that a revision petition filed by one Mulpuri Venkateswar Rao s/o Akkiah Chowdary in respect of the land which is the subject matter of this writ petition is pending before respondent No.3 as ROR Revision No.14 of 2010. Respondent No.5 has, therefore, informed respondent No.2 that in view of the pendency of the said revision petition, the name of the petitioner is not entered in the computerised e-pahanies for the year 2012-13 and that therefore, it is not possible to issue digital pahani showing the name of the petitioner.
The fact that the revision petition filed by Mulpuri Venkateswar
Rao against the petitioner in respect of the same land is pending before respondent No.3 is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the issue relating to the right of the petitioner over the subject land is sub judice, I do not find any illegality in respondent No.5 not issuing pahani in respect of 2012-13.
The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the revision petitioner is a necessary and proper party to this writ petition, but he is not impleaded in the writ petition.
Be that as it may, as the action of respondent No.5 in refusing to issue pahani pending revision petition cannot said to be unjustified, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. If the petitioner succeeds in the revision petition before respondent No.3, she shall be free to approach respondent No.5 for issuance of pahani.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.46695 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
23rd December, 2013 VGB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the high court should entertain a writ petition challenging the non-issuance of a pahani when a related land revision is sub judice.
Kalagara Suvarchala Devi
Government of Andhra Pradesh
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
