Dismissed

Gogineni Sridevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC19 Jan 2016WP/41158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these Writ Petitions challenging notices issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to entertain an appeal, the court held that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction. The matter of land classification and maintainability is left to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is directed to pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions dismissed; no order costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Gogineni Sridevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.41158, 41161, 41164, 41165, 41181, 41210, 41211, 41213 & 41215 OF 2015

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

In all these Writ Petitions, the notices dated 09.11.2015 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram,

¶5

East Godavari District, the 3^rd respondent herein, is questioned primarily on the ground that under Section 5(B) of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’), he has no power to entertain an appeal on the report of the Tahsildar, Prathipadu, East Godavari District, the 4^th respondent herein.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the very assumption in the report of the 4^th respondent that the lands are assigned lands is factually incorrect and is opposed to the proceedings of the 4^th respondent in Reference No.B/300/2012, dated 30.11.2014. Learned counsel would rely upon the conclusion in the said order that the lands in question are zeroyati lands. Hence, it is contended that when the lands are zeroyati lands and not assigned lands, the very report of the 4^th respondent treating the said lands as assigned lands and the appeal entertained by the 3^rd respondent based on the said report, is misconceived and is not tenable.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the 3^rd respondent has power to entertain an appeal under Section 5B(2) of the Act. He further submits that once the 3^rd respondent is made aware of the fact that the subject lands are not assigned lands by the report of the 4^th respondent, he can himself suo motu take appropriate action under Section 5(B)(2) of the Act and also submits that there is no reason why the impugned notices

¶8

are challenged by the petitioners, when they can as well appear before the 3^rd respondent and submit their objections which they intend to.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. However, I am unable to see any inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to quash the impugned notices issued by the 3^rd respondent and entertain the appeal and call upon the petitioners to participate in the enquiry proposed.

¶10

The petitioners, undoubtedly, have liberty to raise their contentions on the maintainability of the proceedings before the 3^rd respondent on merits and all such objections would be looked into and considered by the 3^rd respondent while dealing with the appeal which he has entertained. All these questions are left open and both the parities are at liberty to take appropriate steps as they wish to take before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent shall thereafter pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the parties.

¶11

These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶13

____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶14

19.01.2016 KH

Gogineni Sridevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gogineni Sridevi, 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

Madala Sujatha Sivani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

M.Rarnanjaneyulu, Vs The State of A.P.

Koppula Kishiore Mitra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alaparthi Udayasri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ponnaganti Rajani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

Chepamadugula Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal