Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gounipalle Ramakrishnaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 September, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.19854 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is
filed seeking the following reliefs:
"...to issue an order/proceedings/direction or writ
of mandamus declaring the action of the
respondent no.4 in mutating the name of the 5th
respondent in the revenue records as the owner
and possessor of the land in Sy.No.497/3 in an
extent Ac.1.76 cents of Sibbala Village, Rayachoty
Mandal, kadapa District and thereafter the 5th
respondent issuing adangal, IB, PPB and TD without
following the due process of law and also in
violation of the principles of the natural justice
detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and
also the respondent No.3/Sub Collector, Kadapa not
passing any order on the stay application filed by
the petitioner herein in the pending Appeal
Ref.No.D1/964/2021 filed by the writ petitioner as
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in
violation of the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and Rules 1989
and consequently set aside the mutation of the
name of the respondent No.5 in the revenue records
and later to restore the name of the writ petitioner
in the revenue records for the said property..."
2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the
respondents, during hearing, Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioner limited his request to direct the 3rd respondent to
dispose of the appeal along with the suspension petition filed by
the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for the respondents readily agreed to dispose of the
appeal along with the suspension petition filed by the petitioner, if
any, pending with the respondent-authorities.
4. In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of
the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that
no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in "The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1", wherein
the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or
easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions.
But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned
counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to
the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal along with the stay
petition filed by the petitioner, which is pending before him, I find
no other alternative, except to issue such direction.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the
3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal along with suspension
petition, pending with him, in accordance with law, within six (06)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till passing
orders, both parties are directed to maintain status quo as on
date. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,
shall also stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 09.09.2021
Note: C.C. by one week.
(B/o.)
SPP
2019 (8) SCALE 544
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO. 19854 OF 2021
Date: 09.09.2021
Note: C.C. by one week.
(B/o.)
SPP
