IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.12428 and 21987 of 2010
Date: 13.06.2014
Between W.P.No.12428/2010 Chakravarthula Venkata Chary, S/o late Ch.narsimha Chary, Aged 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.3-8, Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.
…Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others.
…Respondents W.P.No.21987/2010 Chakravarthula Venkata Chary, S/o late Ch.narsimha Chary, Aged 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.3-8, Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.
…Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others.
…Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.12428 and 21987 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:
relief:
Writ Petition No.12428 of 2010 is filed seeking the following
“To issue a writ, of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring the impugned Prohibiting registrations of the documents in respect of the lands in Sy.No. 57 of Badangpet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and consequently set- aside the same to the extent of Sl.No. 5 of Annexure -III of impugned prohibition orders and further direct the respondents No. 4 and 5 to register the documents pertaining to the above said lands.”
2. Writ Petition No.21987 of 2010 is filed seeking the following relief:
“To issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Proceedings in Rc.No.M1/21500/2010 dated 28.07.2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law, being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
3. Heard Sri T.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.
4. When the writ petitions are taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the issue in these writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier orders of this Court in the case of P.SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS v. SUB-REGISTRAR, RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR[1] a n d PASUPARTHI JAYARAM v.
[2]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH and in view of the same, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed.
5. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the reasons recorded in the above referred judgments of this Court and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government, the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and the respondents shall register the documents pertaining to the subject lands. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 13.06.2014 grk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.12428 of 2010
Date: 13.06.2014
grk
[1] 2012 (6) ALD 260
[2] 2013 (4) ALT 541