The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... vs Pamidi Nagaraju,
2021 Latest Caselaw 538 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                      [[




          WRIT APPEAL Nos.1746 of 2017 and 183 of 2018

                    (Taken up through video conferencing)


W.A.No.1746 of 2017:

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad,
Now at Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others.
                                                       ..    Appellants
      Versus

Pamidi Nagaraju,
S/o Venkata Subba Rao,
Aged 60 years, Occ: business,
Pedanandipadu village & Mandal,
Guntur District.
                                                       ..    Respondent

Counsel for the appellants : GP for Revenue (Assignments) Counsel for the respondent : Mr. P.V.N. Kiran Kumar

W.A.No.183 of 2018:

The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur.

                                                       ..    Appellant
      Versus

Pamidi Nagaraju,
S/o Venkata Subba Rao,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business,
Pedanandipadu Village & Mandal,
Guntur District, and others
                                                       ..    Respondents

Counsel for the appellants        : GP for Home
Counsel for respondent No.1       : Mr. P.V.N. Kiran Kumar

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP for Revenue

COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt: 02.02.2021

per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.1746 of 2017 and for

respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.A.No.183 of 2018, Mr. V. Maheshwar Reddy,

learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the appellant in

W.A.No.183 of 2018, and Mr. P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for the sole respondent in W.A.No.1746 of 2017, who is

respondent No.1 in W.A.No.183 of 2018.

Both these appeals arise out of an order dated 03.04.2017 in

W.P.No.7491 of 2017 passed by a learned single Judge. W.A.No.1746 of

2017 is preferred by all the respondent authorities in the said writ petition,

while respondent No.3 therein, Superintendent of Police, Guntur District,

separately filed W.A.No.183 of 2018.

The operative portion of the order under challenge reads as follows:

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ

petition is allowed to the extent of Ac.0.65½ cents with

exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- and the Government has to make

an enquiry and fix the responsibility on the officer, who has

included the subject property in the list of prohibited properties

under Section 22-A (1)(b) of the Registration Act. After paying

costs to the petitioner the same shall be recovered from the

salary of the concerned Officer who included the subject property

in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A (1)(b) of

the Act. If the respondents failed to acquire land to an extent of

Ac.0.4 ½ cents out of 70 cents where police station is

constructed, within a period of six months, it is open for the

petitioner to seek execution of decree dated 07.07.2010 in

S.A.No.80 of 2010.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent

indicated above, with costs."

Mr. V. Maheshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home,

submits that in the land to an extent of Ac.0.4½ cents, as indicated in the

operative portion of the order under appeal, building of Pedanandipadu

Police Station was constructed and, therefore, directions, as contained in

the order under appeal, are wholly impermissible in law.

We are unable to accept his contention.

The writ petitioner had already succeeded in a civil litigation and in

those circumstances, the learned single Judge had observed that inclusion

of the subject land in the list of prohibited properties under

Section 22A (1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, is illegal. It is in that view

of the matter that the learned single Judge observed that if the

respondents failed to acquire land to an extent of Ac.0.4½ cents out of 70

cents where police station was constructed, within a period of six months, it

would be open for the writ petitioner to seek execution of decree dated

07.07.2010 in S.A.No.80 of 2010. We see no grounds to interfere with the

said observations.

Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue,

submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single

Judge was not justified in levying exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- and

directing for recovery of the said amount from the concerned officer, after

making an enquiry and fixing responsibility.

Mr. P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing the writ

petitioner, submits that he would have no objection if the amount of costs

of Rs.50,000/- is waived.

Considering the matter in its entirety, we are inclined to waive the

costs of Rs.50,000/- as imposed by the learned single Judge.

Accordingly, the amount of costs of Rs.50,000/-, as imposed by the

learned single Judge, is waived, while making it clear that the order under

appeal holds good in all other respects.

The writ appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

IBL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL Nos.1746 of 2017 and 183 of 2018

(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 02.02.2021

IBL