Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Chandra Obul Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 October, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
APHC010444302024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 838/2024
Between:
V. Chandra Obul Reddy, ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. S DUSHYANTH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The appellant had approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.20769 of 2024 contending that representations dated 05.08.2024 and
14.08.2024 submitted by him to the respondents 2 & 3 for a deletion of an
entry that is said to have been wrongly mentioned in LPM No.2183, relating to
an extent of Ac.0.22 cents of land in Sy.No.311/A1, Alladupalle Revenue
Village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR District, was not being considered.
2. A Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed this Writ Petition
on 23.09.2024 on the basis of the instructions produced by the Assistant
Government Pleader to the effect that there is a dispute over the said land and
a suit bearing O.S.No.190 of 2023 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur,
Kadapa District had also been filed and was pending.
2
3. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the
ground of suppression of fact and non-inclusion of necessary parties.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant has moved the
present Writ Appeal.
5. Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant had not included any of the contesting party on the
ground that his grievance before the Court was non-consideration of his
representation and consequently, only the Revenue Authorities had been
made a party. He would further submit that, the levy of Rs.20,000/- as cost is
a heavy burden on the appellant.
6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the
Learned Single Judge as necessary information was not set out in the affidavit
filed in support of the Writ Petition regarding the dispute relating to
O.S.No.190 of 2023.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the Order of
the Learned Single Judge is modified to the extent of deleting the requirement
to pay cost of Rs.20,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
________________
HARINATH.N, J.
BSM
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
W.A.No.838 OF 2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date: 04.10.2024
BSM
