Palakaluri Venkata Narayana @ P.V.Narayana Rao v. Prakasam at Ongole, Prakasam District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Nov 2004
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO.21270 of 2004 Between: Palakaluri Venkata Narayana @ P.V.Narayana Rao, S/o.Sri P.Chenchaiah, R/o.Rajampalli Village, Darsi mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector- Prakasam at Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Darsi Mandal, Darsi-Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the action of the respondents in not granting consequential Ryotwari patta and making necessary entries in the village records of Rajampalli village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District is arbitrary (ii) declare that the petitioner is patta holder in respect of survey No.103, 104 and 333 admeasuring lands to an extent of Ac.11-20 cents, Ac.8-29 cents and Ac.8-80 cents respectively and (iii) consequently direct the respondents to make necessary entries in the village records declaring that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the lands in survey Nos.103, 104 and 333 admeasuring lands to an extent of Ac.11-20 cents, Ac.8-29 cents and Ac.8-80 cents respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondents to take necessary steps on the representations of the petitioner dated 25.08.2004 and 20.10.2004 addressed to the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Darsi, for grant of Ryotwari Patta in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.11.20 cents, Ac.8.29 cents and Ac.8.80 cents in Survey Nos.103, 104 and 333 respectively in terms of the proceedings issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore under Section 11-A of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948 in S.R.No.13/11 (a)/63/DSI, dated 26.06.1966. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore for grant of Ryotwari patta in respect of the lands situated in R.S.Nos.103, 104 and 333 (Old Survey Nos.23/1, 23/2 and 82/3) of Rajampalli village admeasuring Ac.11.20 cents, Ac.8.29 cents and Ac.8.80 cents respectively and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore after detailed enquiry allowed the claim of the petitioner vide his orders in S.R.No.13/11(a)/63/DSI, dated 26.6.1966 and directed the respondents to issue Ryotwari patta to the petitioner. But, in spite of several representations made by the petitioner, the respondents did not take any action so far. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The respondents are hereby directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations said to have been made by the petitioner on 25.08.2004 and
20.10.2004 in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J) Date: 22.11.2004 Nsr/Asp To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector- Prakasam at Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Darsi Mandal, Darsi-Prakasam District. 3 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Nov 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.