Dismissed

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC18 Jun 2015WP/17585/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner alleging irregular acquisition. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as an ownership dispute was pending before a civil court and the impugned authority was statutorily obligated to resolve it before granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file appropriate application before the competent authority under the Act.

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17585 of 2015

¶3

Between:

¶4

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.17585 of 2015

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioner claims to have purchased Ac.1.12 ½ cents of dry land in D.No.341, Pedapudi Village, Navaluru Sivaru, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District from the 5^th respondent and entered into sale agreement. Since the 5^th respondent was not executing sale deed, the petitioner filed O.S.No.10 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District against the 5^th respondent for specific performance of sale agreement. Stating that the said land is within the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) and is covered by Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’), respondents 3 and 4 have acquired the said land for the development of National Highway No.5, and the petitioner also gave willingness for acquisition. Alleging that even though the suit is pending and even without settling the issue of entitlement to receive the benefits, the respondent-authorities are trying to disburse the amounts and CRDA Bonds in favour of the 5^th respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

¶13

As seen from the averments in the writ affidavit and the material papers enclosed, it appears that there is a dispute with regard to the ownership between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent in respect of some extent of land, and the petitioner instituted O.S.No.10 of 2012, which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur

¶14

District and no injunction has been granted in the said suit.

¶15

According to Section 50 of the Act when there is a dispute as regards the ownership, the authority is under obligation to resolve the said dispute by following due process of law. According to Section 94 of the Act, the authority is vested with the powers of civil Court including to summon, enforce attendance, discovery, and production of documents, receiving affidavits etc.

¶16

As the writ petition is filed by the petitioner without invoking the jurisdiction of the competent authority, that too, when the suit is pending, the relief sought for by him cannot be granted and the respondent authority cannot be directed not to disburse the amounts as payable in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to the persons identified, who are entitled to receive the benefits.

¶17

Thus this writ petition, at this stage, is not maintainable, more particularly, when the suit is pending before the competent court. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the competent authority under the Act or take course of action as warranted under law. As and when such application is filed the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

P. NAVEEN RAO, J.

¶19

18^th June, 2015 Js.

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Khairatabad Sarada, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secreta

Gidigam Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Telangana

M. Hemalatha, Vs The State of Telangana

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Matke Nagaiah Dharma shala Vs State of Telangana

Vuggirla Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary