Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Samuluru Venkata Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.27072 of 2023
Between:-
Samuluru Venkata Lakshmi .... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Prl. Secretary,
Revenue Department.,
& 6 others .... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. K. Srinivas
Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 : G.P for Revenue
Counsel for Respondents 5 to 7 : -----
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the official
respondents.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the
3rd respondent in entertaining the appeal vide proceedings
D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1991/2021 dated 09.01.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and
violative of principles of natural justice and for consequential
direction to set-aside the said proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions inter
alia to impress upon this Court that after a lapse of thirty years,
respondents 5 to 7 filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent for
deletion of entries in respect of the Sy.No.187/3 of an extent of
Ac.3.60 cents situated at Kurukunta Village., and the same was
entertained by the 3rd respondent, which is not permissible in Law.
He submits that as per Section 5 of A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books Act., any person aggrieved by amendment carried out by
the Tahsildar has to approach the concerned R.D.O within thirty
days from the date of amendment. He submits that in the present
case, the appeal was preferred in the year 2021, the same was
entertained and orders were passed on 09.01.2023. The learned
counsel also submits as held by the Hon'ble Court in Judgment
reported in 2003 (1) ALT, page 688, the 3rd respondent / R.D.O has
no power or authority to entertain the appeal after an abnormal
delay. However, the learned counsel fairly submits that against the
orders passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred
revision before the 2nd respondent and that the same is pending and
despite the same, the revenue authorities are trying to implement
the orders of the 3rd respondent and therefore, the petitioner is
constrained to approach this Court.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused
the material on record.
5. Admittedly, against the orders dated 09.01.2023 passed by
the 3rd respondent, a revision petition is filed and the same is
pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. In such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue two
parallel remedies i.e., one before the revisional authority and the
other by way of the present Writ Petition.
6. Therefore, this Court without going into the merits of the case
is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 2nd
respondent to take up the revision petition filed by the petitioner
and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with Law, after
giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned, as expeditiously
as possible, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of
copy of this Order. It is needles to observe, as the order of the 3rd
respondent is under challenge before the revisional authority, the 4th
respondent shall not take any coercive steps, in whatsoever manner,
during the pendency of the revision.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Date: 13.10.2023
GVK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.27072 of 2023
Date: 13.10.2023
GVK
