Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt.Muddu Nagaratnam, vs The Commissioner, on 23 May, 2024

                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                             MAIN CASE : W.P.No.12063 of 2024
                                     PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.       Date                                ORDER                              OFFICE
No.                                                                               NOTE

1.    23.05.2024
                    SRS,J
                                          I.A.No.1 of 2024
                            This petition is filed to dispense with filing of
                    certified copy of order dated 22.01.2024 passed vide
                    Proceedings No.Sett.I(1)/231/2016 by respondent No.1.

Dispensed with the present.

________ SRS, J W.P.No.12063 of 2024 Rule nisi. Call for records.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and seeks time to file counter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent Nos.6 and 7 through RPAD and file proof of service.

Post along with W.P.No.11559 of 2024.

________ SRS, J I.A.No.2 of 2024 Challenging the order dated 22.01.2024 passed vide proceedings No.Sett.I(1)/231/2016, by respondent No.1, the above writ petition is filed.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 lacks jurisdiction to hold the post of Commissioner of Appeal, O/o Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, being retired I.A.S. He further submits that order impugned, is contrary to the law declared in Anakappalli Vijayalakshmi and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2022 (1) ALD 597 (AP), wherein learned Single Judge of this Court considered the meaning of 'Zeroyati'. He submits that Zeroyati land is cultivable land, which is in the possession of the ryots as ryotwari land or private land of the Estate Holder.

Whether respondent No.1 got jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed under the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, by Joint Collector, needs to be examined.

The question regarding Zeroyati land is also to be considered.

Prima facie, to meet the ends of justice, interim order needs to be passed in this case.

In view of the above, both the parties shall maintain status quo existing as today, in respect of the subject property, in all respects, until further orders.

________ SRS, J Ikn