Telangana High Court
WP/25624/2006 of Adigarla Govindu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Authorised on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.25624 of 2006 22.12.2006 Between: Adigarla Govindu ..Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh. and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.25624 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner’s father late Gazzi Reddy is
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
WRIT PETITION No.25624 of 200622.12.2006
Between:
Adigarla Govindu ..Petitioner
And
State of Andhra Pradesh. and others.
..Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAOWRIT PETITION No.25624 of 2006
The petitioner’s father late Gazzi Reddy is the owner ofagricultural land situated at K.E.Chinnayyapalem Village, KotanandurMandal, East Godavari District. He filed declaration under Section 8 ofthe Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)Act, 1973. The third respondent herein considered the same, beingL.C.C.475/TNI/75, and passed orders on 20.06.1992, determining anextent of 0.2872 Standard Holdings, as ceiling surplus. Aggrieved bythe same, as Gazzi Reddy passed away, the petitioner and his motherfiled L.R.A.No.113 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Land ReformsAppellate Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Kakinada. While theappeal was pending, an extent of Acs.2.50 cents in survey No.101/4Aand Acs.4.68 cents in survey No.178/2 was surrendered andpossession was taken by the fourth respondent. Be that as it is, theL.R.A., was allowed on 26.07.1993 holding that the petitioner is a non-surplus holder. The Government then filed C.R.P.No.781 of 1998. The same was dismissed on 18.07.2003. The petitioner thenapproached the third respondent on 10.09.2003 seeking restoration ofland, in vein. The petitioner’s further representations purred futile. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction torespondents 2 and 3 to restore the land admeasuring Acs.7.18 centsimmediately.
At the stage of admission itself, the fourth respondent filed acounter-affidavit. While admitting the petitioner’s case, it is stated thatthe records were sent to the High Court, while C.R.P.No.781 of 1998was pending. After disposal of the C.R.P., the High Court has sent therecords to the Court of District Judge, East Godavari, and the record isnot yet received by the third respondent. Therefore, redeliveryproceedings should not be issued in favour of the petitioner. As thereis no dispute about the right of the petitioner, to seekrestoration/redelivery of the land surrendered, respondents 3 and 4 aregiven liberty to approach the learned District Judge and obtain deliveryof the record pertaining to L.C.C./475/TNI/75 (L.R.A.No.113 of 1992)out of which, C.R.P.No.781 of 1998 arose. As and when respondents3 and 4 approach the learned District Judge, the record will be handed over immediately to enable respondents 3 and 4 to issue necessaryredelivery proceedings in favour of the petitioner.
The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
22.12.2006
GJ
Note: Dispatch a copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry.