Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 354 (AP)

Kondru Sunitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-06-24

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.......pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent from de-notification of lands placed under Section 22-A of Registration Act 1908 despite the report of 3rd Respondent vide Re No 1102/2013/HDT dated 10.02.2014 and legal notice dated 26.04.2021 as illegal and arbitrary and violation of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders.....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she and other person by name Sri R.V. Bhaskar Rao jointly purchased an extent of Ac. 1.59 cents in T.S. No. 33 of Maharajupeta, North Ward of Vizianagaram North Town, vide registered Document No. 6487 of 2012 dated 8.10.2012 from Smt. Konduru Eswaramma W/o Late Appalaswamy. T.S. No. 33 of Maharajupeta, North Ward of Vizianagaram, North Town is noted as private land registered as “Sri Sri Estate Varu” (Ralla Gutta) in the town survey register. The total extent of the land is Ac. 2.59 cents and originally the vendor’s father Guntuboyina Sanyasi was in possession as per public copies and the Adangalpahanies issued by the then Estate Deputy Tahsildar, Vizianagarm. The petitioner with other person made representation dated 20.05.2013 to the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram stating that they have purchased the said land from one Konduru Eswaramma under registered document in the year 2012 and it was a private land, after 2012 the Vizianagaram municipality included the land in the list of government land, and requested the respondent to take appropriate action in the matter for deleting the same from the list of government lands. Pursuant to the representation, the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram-3rd respondent addressed a communication in Rc. No. 1102/2013/HDT, dated 10.02.2014 to Revenue Divisional officer, Vizianagaram while referring to the representation that the land in TS No. 33 of Maharajupeta, North Ward of Vizianagaram, North Town purchased vide Regd. Doc. Pursuant to the representation, the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram-3rd respondent addressed a communication in Rc. No. 1102/2013/HDT, dated 10.02.2014 to Revenue Divisional officer, Vizianagaram while referring to the representation that the land in TS No. 33 of Maharajupeta, North Ward of Vizianagaram, North Town purchased vide Regd. Doc. No. 6487/2012, dated 8.10.2012 from one Smt Kondru Eswarama who inherited the same from her father late Guntuboyina Sanyasi was inadvertently included in the list of Government land by the Vizianagaram municipality and explained that T.S. No. 33 of Maharajupeta, North Ward of Vizianagaram, North Town is noted as private land registered as Sri Sri Estate varu in the town survey register and as per the public copies issued by the Estate Deputy Tahsildar, Vizianagaram during 1951. In view of the communication of Tahsildar, Vizianagaram by the petitioner dated 10.2.2014, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram vide proceedings in Rc. No. 623/2014-A, dated 25.06.2014 addressed to the District Collector of Vizianagaram-2nd respondent about reporting of the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, that T.S. No. 33 of Maharajupeta, North Ward of Vizianagaram, North Town is noted as private land registered as Sri Sri Estate Varu in the town register. While the matter stood thus, on 03.01.2017 a letter vide Rc. No. 3/2017/E2, dated 03.01.2017 was addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Vizianagaram with a request to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report immediately. In spite of the said letter issued by the 2nd respondent-the District Collector, Vizianagaram vide Rc. No. 3/2017/E2, dated 03.01.2017, the then Tahsildar did not take any action so far, for the reasons best known to him. Hence, the petitioner requested to direct the respondent to delete the disputed land from the list of government land under Section 22-A of Registration Act while declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. No counter is filed by the respondents. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submitted that necessary direction be issued to the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar to complete the enquiry and submit a report within a time frame so as to enable the District Collector-2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders. 5. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submitted that necessary direction be issued to the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar to complete the enquiry and submit a report within a time frame so as to enable the District Collector-2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders. 5. In view of the limited request made by learned counsel for the petitioner and recording the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, considering the report of Tahsildar for further correspondence between the District Collector in the year 2017 in Rc. No. 3/2017/E2, dated 03.01.2017, it is suffice to issue a direction to the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar to submit a report in response to the letter of the 2nd respondent-the District Collector, dated 03.01.2017, within four (04) weeks from today, so as to enable the 2nd respondent-District Collector to pass appropriate orders exercising power under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.