Velpula Bhaskar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4024 AP

                    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
                         WRIT PETITION NO.3962 of 2021
ORDER:-

          This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

questioning the       notice dated 30.9.2020 issued by the Sub Collector,

Rajampeta, YSR Kadapa District, under Section 5(5) & Rule 21(1) of

ROR Act.

2.        The contention of the petitioner is that the Sub Collector has no

jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, as per the

reported judgment of this High Court in case of Ratnamma vs. The

Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur

District and two others1.

3.        Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

unofficial respondent         made an application, through Spandana, to the

District Collector, Kadapa and based on the same the Collector, has

directed the Tahsildar, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District, to conduct

enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, the Tahsidlar, conducted

enquiry and submitted a report on 28.7.2019. Despite the report available,

the respondents, without considering the same, basing on another report

submitted by the Tahsildar dated 6.7.2020, has issued the present

impugned notice to the petitioner.

4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that when there is an

report existing submitted by the Tahsildar dated 28.7.2019, there is no

necessity of giving second report dated 6.7.2020 and secondly, the Sub

Collector, Rajampeta, YSR Kadapa District, has no jurisdiction to entertain

and issue notice, under section 5(5) of the Act, which is contrary to the

settled law.

2015 (6) ALD 609 (D.B.)

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has submitted

that though the 5th respondent has made an application to the District

Collector, Kadapa District, he has delegated his power to the Sub

Collector, Kadapa District, who on such delegation, has issued notice.

The petitioner, if having any objection, at the most, he can raise all the

objections by way of reply to the notice, instead of filing Writ Petition.

Considering the submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of

the notice dated 30.9.2020 of the 3rd respondent and also the orders of

this High Court issued in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional

Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and two

others cited above, this Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to

the petitioner to raise all the objections, including jurisdictional aspect

before the concerned authority ie., the 3rd respondent herein within four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such

objections, if any filed, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same

and take appropriate action, within four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

__________ D.RAMESH,J Date: 15.7.2022 PA.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.3962 of 2021

Date : 15-07-2022

PA.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No:W.P.No.3962 of 2021

PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.

      DATE         ORDER                                           OFFIC
NO.
                                                                   E
                                                                   NOTE
01.   15.07.2022   DR, J

Writ Petition is disposed of. (VSO)

_______

DR,J

PA.

SL.

DATE ORDER OFFIC NO.

E NOTE