The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs V. Rama Tulasamma,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3901 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                    WRIT APPEAL No. 564 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)

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

        Versus

V. Rama Tulasamma
W/o. Sivarama Krishnayya,
Age 81 years, r/o.D.No.1-79,
Near Ramalayam,
Padamata Lankapalli village,
Pamidimukkala Mandal,
Krishna District.                                             .. Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, Government Pleader

Counsel for respondent : Ms. M. Kiranmayee ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 04.10.2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader

attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the appellants/respondents.

2. Also heard Ms. M. Kiranmayee, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/writ petitioner.

3. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2020

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20483 of 2020.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Syed Khader Masthan that no opportunity

was granted to the appellants/respondents to contest the proceedings.

By drawing attention of the Court to page 75 of the writ appeal papers,

it is submitted that the land in dispute is listed in prohibitory list under

Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. The writ petition was

filed before the learned single Judge on 02.11.2020 and the same was

disposed of on 05.11.2020. It is submitted that on the ground of

violation of principal natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be

set aside and the matter may be remanded back to learned single Judge

for fresh consideration.

5. Ms. M. Kiranmayee submits that the order passed by the learned

single Judge is a consent order and, therefore, the writ appeal is liable

to be dismissed. In this connection, she has referred to paragraph 6 of

the order of the learned single Judge, which reads as under:

"6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents has submitted that the authorities will consider the

application as per the provisions of the Act and pass appropriate orders

within a reasonable time."

6. The submission of Ms. M. Kiranmayee has to be seen in the

context of eventual direction passed by the learned single Judge, which

reads as follows:

"The respondents more particularly 4th respondent is directed to

consider the applications made by the petitioner on 16.6.2020 and

18.9.2020 and mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records

and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the subject

land, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

7. The learned single Judge had given a direction to mutate the

name of the petitioner in revenue records and issue pattadar pass books

and, therefore, the contention of Ms. M. Kiranmayee is misconceived.

8. We are of the considered opinion that the appellants have been

denied the opportunity of contesting the case on merits and,

accordingly, the order is set aside.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated

05.11.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.20483

of 2020, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned

single Judge for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No. 564 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 04.10.2021

GM