Andhra Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 9956of 2025 on 18 September 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH(Special Original Jurisdiction)
:: AMARAVATI
%-fl(j;^ y(»\, -0,,uf$’y.4O
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9956 OF 2025
Between:
Smt. Datia Hyma, W/o.DatIa Jayasankara Prasad Aged about 60 years,R/o.D.No.50-25-6,FlatNo.402,TungabhadraResidency TPTColony,Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District,[A.P.][ 530013.]
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur[District.]Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur[District.]
2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District,[Andhra][ Pradesh.]
3. TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,VisakhapatnamDivisionVisakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Tahasildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,Andhra Pradesh.Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondentm considering the Petitioners request for deletion of the land an extent ofAc.0.60ctsoflandinSurveyNo.1/1ofRushikondaVillage,Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, from the prohibitedlist of properties maintained under Section 22A(1)(a) of the RegistrationAct, 1908, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A ofthe Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondenttoconsider the Representation of the Petitioner, dt.08.01.2025,in terms ofthe Proceedings, dt.18.09.1994 vide Ref.No.B1/3155/1993, issued by theChief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the 2"'^ Respondent to consider the Representation of thePetitioner, dt.08.01.2025 for deletion of the land, an extent of Ac.0.60 cts oflandin Survey No.1/1of Rushi Konda Village, VisakhapatnamRuralMandal, VisakhapatnamDistrict,from the prohibitedlistofpropertiesmaintained under Section 22A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, in termsof the Proceedings, dt. 18.09.1994 vide Ref.No.B1/3155/1993, issued bythe Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh,pendingdisposal of writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V,SURYA KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
APHC010187152025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3329]
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9956/2025
Between:
Smt. Datia Hyma,
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
...RESPONDENT(S)
1.VSURYA KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent{S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDAWRIT PETITION NO: 9956/2025
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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-
“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly[one][ in][ the][ nature][ of]Writof Mandamusdeclaringtheinactionof the2'’°'Respondentinconsidering the Petitioner’s request for deletion of the land an extent ofAc.0-60ctsoflandinSurveyNo. 1/1ofRushikondaVillage,VisakhapatnamRuralMandal,VisakhapatnamDistrict,fromtheprohibitedlist of properties maintained under Section 22A(1)(a)of theRegistration Act, 1908, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently[direct][ the][ 2]ndrespondenttoconsidertheRepresentationofthePetitioner,dt08.01.2025,in termsof the Proceedings,dt 18.09.1994videRef No.BI/3155/1993,issued by theChief Commissionerof LandRevenueAndhra Pradesh, and pass...”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned[Government]Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that he submitted an application seekingdeletion of land to an extent of Ac.0-60 Cents in Sy.No.1/1of RushikondaVillage, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, from the list ofprohibited properties prepared under Section 22(1 )(a) of the Registration Act,1908 (for short ‘the Act’). Evenafter receiptof therepresentationof thepetitioner,the respondentsneither consideredthe samenor issuedanyproceedings. Hence, the present Writ Petition.deletion of land to an extent of Ac.0-60 Cents in Sy.No.1/1of RushikondaVillage, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, from the list ofprohibited properties prepared under Section 22(1 )(a) of the Registration Act,1908 (for short ‘the Act’). Evenafter receiptof therepresentationof thepetitioner,the respondentsneither consideredthe samenor issuedanyproceedings. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. Ontheotherhand,thelearnedGovernmentPleaderforRevenueappearing for the respondents furnished written instructions issued by the 2ndrespondent, wherein it is stated that;appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions issued by the 2ndrespondent, wherein it is stated that; “Therefore the subject land was resumed in the year[1987]itself and thereis no appeal or petition questioningtheaboveresumptionandhencetheassigneelosthisclaim/possession in the year 1987 itself and as such[further]
transfer of possession/titte over the subject property[does]not arise and the land is vested \A/ith the Government.”
5. LearnedGovernmentPleaderforRevenuefurther submitsthattheapplication said to have been submitted by the petitioner[for][ denotification][ of]the land from the prohibited properties under Section 22(1 )(a) of the Act is notsufficient and petitioner should file appropriate application through Mee-SevaandifshesubmitsappropriateapplicationthroughMee-Seva,the2ndrespondent will consider the same and pass appropriate[orders][ in][ accordance]with law.application said to have been submitted by the petitioner[for][ denotification][ of]the land from the prohibited properties under Section 22(1 )(a) of the Act is notsufficient and petitioner should file appropriate application through Mee-SevaandifshesubmitsappropriateapplicationthroughMee-Seva,the2ndrespondent will consider the same and pass appropriate[orders][ in][ accordance]with law.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned[counsel][ for][ the]petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for therespondents and on perusal of the material on record and without going intothe merits of the case that this Court is of the considered view that the presentWritPetitioncanbedisposedofdirectingthepetitionertosubmitanappropriateapplication through Mee-Seva for denotificationof the subjectland from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22(1 )(a) of theAct, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis Order and along withall other documents to substantiatehertitle asrequired and necessary as available with her. After such submission, the 2ndrespondentis hereby directed to consider the same and pass appropriateorders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and otherstake holders,if any, within a period of four (04)[months][ thereafter.]petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for therespondents and on perusal of the material on record and without going intothe merits of the case that this Court is of the considered view that the presentWritPetitioncanbedisposedofdirectingthepetitionertosubmitanappropriateapplication through Mee-Seva for denotificationof the subjectland from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22(1 )(a) of theAct, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis Order and along withall other documents to substantiatehertitle asrequired and necessary as available with her. After such submission, the 2ndrespondentis hereby directed to consider the same and pass appropriateorders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and otherstake holders,if any, within a period of four (04)[months][ thereafter.]
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There[shall][ be no][ order][ as]to costs.to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions,if any, pending in the writ petitionshall stand closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAOdeputy registrar
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. ThePrincipalSecretary,StateofAndhraPradesh,RevenueDepartment, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur[District.]
2. The District Collector,
Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,VisakhapatnamDivision,RevenueDivisionalOfficer,VisakhapatnamDivision,Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Tahasildar, VisakhapatnamRural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,Andhra Pradesh.
5. One CC to Sri V Surya Kiran
Kumar, Advocate fOPUC]6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
7. Three CD Copies
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:22/04/2025
ORDER
WP.No.9956 of 2025
DISPOSING OF THE W.P.WITHOUT COSTS