Dismissed

Gade Krishna Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Aug 2017WP/26280/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Revenue Officer's direction to resolve a civil dispute before obtaining land title deeds. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the remedy of appeal under the Act must be exhausted first.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971.

Gade Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26280 of 2017

¶2

DATED : 07.08.2017

¶3

Between :

¶4

Gade Krishna Murthy S/o.Late Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 71 yrs, Occu : Mandal Parishadh Development Officer (Retired), R/o.D.No.1-586, Vittamrajupalli/Brahman Palli, Hamlet of Narapareddipalli village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Amaravati at Velagapudi, Guntur & another.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

This court made the following :

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.26280 of 2017

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Petitioner claims that his father acquired land to an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.32/32B of Pitchukalapalem Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Vinukonda Division, Narasaraopeta Revenue District, Guntur District, an extent of Ac.2.01 cents in Sy.No.261-6A of Kondrumutla Village, Vinukonda Mandal, an extent of Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.No.32/27B of Pitchukulapalem Village and an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.169 of Brahmanapalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. After the demise of his father there is partition among his family members and through partition deed dated 02.07.1996, petitioner was inducted into possession and enjoyment of the properties respectively and there was subsequent revision in the partition. Consequent thereon, petitioner submitted application before the Tahsildar-2^nd respondent for issuance of pattedar pass books and title deeds on various dates in the year 2013 and 2014. Petitioner seems to have been continuously pursuing his request for correction in the revenue records. By the impugned endorsement dated 29.05.2017 petitioner was informed that as there is civil dispute pending between the brothers, he was directed to resolve those disputes in civil Court. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶16

¶17

Under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’) a request can be made for amendment/updating of record. As and when such application is made, the Mandal Revenue Officer, is competent to examine the same and pass appropriate orders, whether accepting the request or rejecting the request.

¶18

According to Sub-Section 5 of Section 5 of the Act, against the said order of MRO for making amendment in the records of revenue or refusing to make such amendment, an appeal would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer and without exhausting the said remedy of appeal, this writ petition is filed.

¶19

The decision communicated to the petitioner in the form of an endorsement also amounts to a decision made by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In accordance with Section 5 of the Act, 1971 as the appeal shall lie, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition even before the petitioner has availed the remedy available under the Act, 1971.

¶20

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971 the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶23

7^th August, 2017 Rds

Gade Krishna Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gade Krishna Murthy, 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

Mohd. Saleem Vs The State of Telangana

Nunna Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary

Dr.Ratnam v.Mullapudi, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Y. Venkata Ramana Vs Sri N.Sridhar

Kudikyala Kankaiah Vs The Superintending Engineer, P.R. Circle

V.Laxama reddy, Vs The State of Telangana