Dismissed

Sadanala Vikramaditya Srinivas, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC1 Feb 2016WP/2872/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging a levy of conversion fees for agricultural land conversion, holding that the petitioner must approach the District Collector under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Act instead. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an appeal under Section 8; demand under impugned order stayed for two weeks to enable filing.

Sadanala Vikramaditya Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2872 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Petitioners are aggrieved by order, dated 16.01.2016 passed by the third respondent – Competent Authority & Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, directing them along with two others to pay Rs.84,50,640/- towards conversion fee and Rs.42,25,320/- towards penalty on conversion fee for converting the agricultural lands to non-agricultural use.

¶5

According to the petitioners, they have paid prescribed fee by way of challans and submitted the same along with their applications. Hence, they have questioned the impugned order whereby huge amount is levied towards conversion fee.

¶6

Even assuming that the contentions of the petitioners are correct, the petitioners have to approach the appellate authority, namely, the District Collector, who is specifically empowered under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 to consider the appeal against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer if filed within 60 days after receipt of such order by the applicants.

¶7

Since the impugned order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer only on 16.01.2016, the petitioners can as well approach the District Collector by filing an appeal, if they are aggrieved by such order. Hence, I find no reasons to entertain the Writ Petition directly bypassing the said available remedy to the petitioners.

¶8

Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under the provision aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, for a period of two weeks, the demand under the impugned order shall not

¶9

be enforced against the petitioners to enable them to move the appellate authority by filing an appeal and seek appropriate orders thereon.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶11

____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 1^st FEBRUARY, 2016. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni

Sadanala Vikramaditya Srinivas, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanala Vikramaditya Srinivas, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

K.C.Sathyanarayana Moorthy Vs The State of A.P.

Chakali Mallaiah, , Korakandla Mallaiah, S/o Yellaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by

Dayyala Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Ooka Surya Chandra Rao Vs State of Ap

Smt. M. Anjamma, Vs The State of Telangana

Nelli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nookaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh