Disposed

Naidu Prakash S/o. Late Sayanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Nov 2016WP/33930/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of multiple writ petitions regarding land registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The Court held that no further orders were necessary as lands were already registered per interim mandates, while leaving open the right to challenge existing prohibitory orders.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions and pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Naidu Prakash S/o. Late Sayanna Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶4

WRIT PETITION Nos.15374, 15979, 22560 and 30972 of 2014; 14857, 14862,

¶5

14863, 14865, 17895, 22556, 32843, 32974, 33930, 33119, 33992, 36986 and 37007

¶6

of 2015, 11045 and 12658 of 2016

¶7

Common Order : ( Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan )

¶8

In all these writ petitions, no notification has been issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) and, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, registration of the subject lands have already been effected.

¶9

While the learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the Government has constituted a Committee to enquire into all these matters, and this order should not preclude the Government from taking action in accordance with law, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that, as the matter has already attained finality before the Supreme Court with the curative petition filed by the State having been dismissed, the respondents cannot now seek to reopen such matters.

¶10

It is wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect as the subject lands have already been registered pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. No further orders need be passed in these writ petitions. Suffice it to make it clear that, in case prohibitory orders have already been issued under Section 22-A of the Act, it is open to the petitioners to question the same in appropriate proceedings; this order is confined only to cases where orders under Section 22-A of the Act have not been issued; and this order shall not preclude the respondents, if they so choose, from taking action in accordance with law.

¶11

¶12

The writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶14

_____________________________ (A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

7^th November, 2016

pnb

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶21

WRIT PETITION Nos.15374, 15979, 22560 and 30972 of 2014; 14857, 14862, 14863, 14865, 17895, 22556, 32843, 32974, 33930, 33119, 33992, 36986 and 37007

¶22

of 2015, 11045 and 12658 of 2016

¶23

Date: 7.11. 2016

¶24

pnb

¶25

Naidu Prakash S/o. Late Sayanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naidu Prakash S/o. Late Sayanna 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

K.Nagaraju, Vs Central Pollution Control Board

M/s. Bhagayya Lakshmi Agencies, Vijayawada, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, M.T.Street Circle

M/s.Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Kakinada, East Godavari Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a 15/2

Mrs. Sobhana Lakshmi Ganti, Vs The State of A.P.

Behara Venkataratnam, W/o.Demudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aravinda Bhupathi Raju, Vs The Govt. of a.P., rep by its Principle Secretary