Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1049 (AP)

Kunapo Sundari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-09

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2024
ORDER : 1. The short grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of her online application dated 31.01.2021 vide application No. RMU-012106186245 made for mutation and issuance of title deeds in respect of the land in an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents in Survey No. 85 of Tedlem village, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner has made an application on 31.01.2021 and for mutation of her name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbook, but despite lapse of considerable time, the authorities have not adjudicated the same nor passed any orders. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed and prayed to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. The said application is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it would suffice for the time being, if a direction is given to the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application in accordance with law in a time bound manner. 4. On the other hand, Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that the petitioner’s application has been rejected on 22.03.2021, as such nothing remains for adjudication and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that along with the counter the rejection orders are not filed and no reasons are stated for rejecting the application and without giving any reasons for rejection, the petitioner will not be in a position as to why her application was rejected without any speaking order, simply showing the application as rejected in online status is untenable and unsustainable. The method and manner in which the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s application is unsustainable and it has to be set aside even if any order exists in that regard. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. In counter it was categorically stated that the petitioner is in occupation of the forest land as such the petitioner application has been rejected. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. In counter it was categorically stated that the petitioner is in occupation of the forest land as such the petitioner application has been rejected. Neither date of rejection has been mentioned in the counter affidavit nor any such rejection order is filed along with it except mentioning that status in the portal shows as rejected, across the bench. Unless a speaking order is passed by the authority concerned the petitioner will not be knowing where she stands legally in the eye of law and to pursue further remedy of preferring of appeal further if required. More so, in case any appeal is preferred the appellant authority will not be in a position to reconsider the decision for paucity of reason. In the said circumstances, the order of rejection of petitioner’s application is illegal and unsustainable. 8. At this length of time, the learned Assistant Government Pleader suggested that if petitioner makes fresh application, the authorities can consider in accordance with law. 9. To the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection. 10. Taking the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue into consideration, to meet the ends of justice this Court is inclined dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: (i) The petitioner is at liberty to make fresh application enclosing all documents which are available with her in support of her claim to the Tahsildar concerned. (ii) On submission, the Tahsildar concerned is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbook by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in a stipulated period as per rules in vogue and communicate the same to the petitioner in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.