Telangana High Court
WP/42450/2015 of Karri Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Bulk Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2015
Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.42450 of 2015 Date: 30.12.2015 Between: Karri Satyanarayana Reddy .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.SV.Ramana Counsel for respondent
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.42450 of 2015
Date: 30.12.2015
Between:
Karri Satyanarayana Reddy
..
Petitioner
and
The State of Andhra PradeshPanchayat Raj DepartmentHyderabad and another
.. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.SV.Ramana Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj(AP)
The Court made the following:
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.
O r d e r :
This Writ Petition is filed questioning theinaction of respondent No.2, in considering thepetitioner’s application, dated 12-09-2015, formutation of his name in respect of the propertypertaining to Sri Satya Gowri Theatre A/c,Anaparthi, situated in Survey No.395 of Anaparthi,East Godavari District, in the property register, asillegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for aconsequential direction to respondent No.2 toundertake transfer in favour of the petitioner.
At the hearing, Mr.Ravi Cheemalapati,learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat RajInstitutions appearing for respondent No.2,submitted that as per the averments in the WritPetition, one Rama Krishna Reddy and two othershave filed OS.No.16 of 2007 in the Court of thelearned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, EastGodavari District at Rajahmundry, against thepetitioner for declaration that the settlement isillegal and for permanent injunction; that the saidsuit was dismissed on 31-05-2014; that feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs therein havefiled AS.No.500 of 2014 before this Court, which ispending; and that in the said Appeal, this Court hasgranted an injunction restraining the petitioner fromalienating the suit schedule property.
In my opinion, mere pendency of an appealagainst the judgment and decree passed in the suit,in which the petitioner had succeeded, would notbar respondent No.2 from considering thepetitioner’s application for mutation of his name inthe property register and what respondent No.2needs to be satisfied with is the prima facie title ofthe petitioner. Inasmuch as the title of thepetitioner based on a registered settlement deedappears to have been affirmed by the civil Court inthe above mentioned suit, it cannot be said that hehas not made out a prima facie case. In theabsence of any injunction restraining respondentNo.2 from mutating the petitioner’s name in theproperty register, respondent No.2 is not precludedfrom exercising its power under the AndhraPradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Rulesmade thereunder.
In the light of the above facts andobservations, respondent No.2 is directed toconsider the petitioner’s application for mutationregardless of pendency of the appeal filed by thirdparty in accordance with law and communicate itsdecision to him within one month from the date ofreceipt of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the WritPetition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,WPMP.No.54749 of 2015, filed by the petitioner forinterim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
______________________
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)Dt: 30[th] December, 2015lur