Telangana High Court
WP/38667/2013 of Rudraraju Rudraraju Subba Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38667 OF 2013 Dated 30th December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. Rudraraju Subba Raju and seven others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38667 OF 2013
Dated 30thDecember 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Rudraraju Subba Raju and seven others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38667 OF 2013
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:
This Writ Petition is filed assailing the validity of the impugnednotice styled as ‘Special Grama Sabha’ issued by respondent No.4.
A perusal of the impugned notice shows that on the applicationsfiled by the petitioners under Form VI-A for mutation of their names inthe Record of Rights in respect the lands admeasuring Acs.72.73cents, respondent No.4 has called for a ‘Special Grama Sabha’ on28.12.2013 for holding an enquiry in the presence of the residents atSangavaka Village Tribals and objectors.
At the hearing, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that under Section 5(3) of the Andhra PradeshRights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”),enquiry to be held by respondent No.4 must be limited to examiningthe claims of the petitioners with reference to the objections that maybe filed by the objectors and that respondent No.4 has far too widenedthe scope of enquiry by convening a ‘Special Grama Sabha’.
I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioners. In as much as Under Section 5(3) of the Act, only thepersons, who filed their objections, are entitled to be heard in theenquiry, convening of a Special Grama Sabha by respondent No.4 iswholly uncalled for and unwarranted. However, as it has come out thaton the schedule day, respondent No.4 has already held the enquiry asproposed by him, no purpose will be served by invalidating the notice. But respondent No.4 is directed to consider only the objections filed bythe persons, who submitted their objections qua the claims of thepetitioners. Respondent No.4 shall not consider objections of thepersons, who are not connected with the lands for which thepetitioners submitted their applications in Form VI-A.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48059 of2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J