Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Bhogala Malakonda Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 22 June, 2020
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
i
Ay
¥
4
:
3
x
a
as
'
&
oS &
- & & x
/ 3 we not ae ad SE ee ae
iene pe EA "ke pe ye ee ooo 4
ie er g & &E ts 3 go ee ie
as OE ts SE . pay Zoe ars tH ©
eo fi. 2 mr NG em sy oo gee oe th ab Oe .
2G & @ ee Oe be PE BE eg Bee
a 3 wg t% oS ae Se eo BOR bo Ge Baa "hee gon
won af e a oe & a ® a he ty Se Ba 2 Hy 4 aS @ :
we us EOD + be wo Ub ee fo EL & "ey be we HS BEE
Cs a ag ao sy, bod a ie yO 3 pO foot ys BO we & "et
Oo ae = z, BE & # ye 2 we B 2 " ae eed Ye hee fe BS ¢ #
tf em, "ge td A vag 3 te ee a we ee ies] ce habe. Bh gg ae fh we eS oe et ae
43 " ng he © oo Se ey (ot a (he BO CS PAS ko Fe Ss ad oe a
SE fox 1h oe fae B as Be we ee 2S Be yt ie oe £
By ho > ib on Ba a a SEe5 2 8% eeteedeke eo B a Ag
o M, ; Mi eye £ ome a "ihe "% s " C4 ? a oo os ene "s, sat oe # aan a
fad pe bok "So set Bg eat @ ay Bok oy me fe Ey ao fF £
Bt >> my Bee me a ZoLe BS BEETS BE w i e @ & EE 43
ZARLZ Ey aE G ® e ge BPS Ben BEE fe @ & og & Bb
a] wc) bre i 4) oe 2. 6 iy Ce HE B eer ay Bk ee ot i @ 4% a 3 a ry ea
we £m via ion & Feed ge oS a in 3 A te" 4 ' / 2 we ay ee ace ee Hiern me ey ie " a oe
"f oh oo xf, at od a } te fee Te Aone te i @ Of wt 2 me Ot Fe
es ne Se ore rh fe i a ke tg ee NS a py @ OL GF oo eo % - me Se Saad
SEAS we EB, g € SOC gO ey BB 4 § € &
tye 25 bee Bo eo 2B &S & e "OF ie Bee , "3 A aS
iy a fy EG fa Set eo kg " eS ee a @ 3 a mm EB
oi Be - ae 2B & Bod ee & 8 OG BR OB
ny FE EE HE gy ma BPE OD os aed OG oy, Bb ee 5 OK,
oe a oe, Ge SS 3 oF a OM 4
£5 te nn ER 3 ry Ky bh : bon be ES a ig i ES
id es oo wy w coon oo be "ge a ee x
been a UE cone x . ee. Wh pet Sth (Bo cseee & a4 a ge ae
few. SS Say LFS re "~y ae: Ls oF teat ey wa i = en in @ teed fas Bs oS
OS oe a ie GES % Bo to on fe oO & 8 ie
ane i § snoad o. ie Ls ae we oe ee ee et ch tet Soh awe £ 2 es
a 3 OE ye Be fe wc H te wo =
iby eS gare nip ee Hon - -- he Oy Son ee GS Ee en see
ME be lke fom gh ER oe BE 2 te Ee Gwe OB
' Be b S % pe om ei ene fs; a a "
Boi Be BSS BESS & Gn B PRE s f.
ee oe i A ke te SEES 6B BE BES % :
ASr ES gt Bee Boe Sag 6.8 ELAR
Oo oe i e553 .B rm Bb mein 'mn Ge fe, bod rt
iy = te 'Bagee be gh aed &
2 t Gs HB eSE ees Boe Soo fy a
me ae ae EE eSEBS 8 Se B® & ge
oh £5 nee YS Py BB UEE ae YG Ree Me Ey 3G i ie ke
tft eo ey he ne oo OY fee & oh "tin BS LD "oy pe OE s Ee a
Be ge TG : ie. wy ay oh woe ORE oy a a" mo oe ton Seo. vo a ce
Ze - ° oe ae Me SS TB Be & fe ed ee a
iy taf ES eg ie eB ze OR 3 Sis G &-< 8 &
a fe BABAR RB Be = Poe ER O
den * Le gto GF tH an an ee 4 hy EE OS 3
po fe eG Fe 2? Be a a ee & & we % 2
Be Ne! 7% at TPS : a8 2 aw mee ay " 9 OG os tis
ae Be. 8 ES : a tm oe Be cg. a £6 a ' BE
ne ee tae os fy ges EY mm 2 my eat boxe & fy py Ee Sass penn on CES a
"per wy fa oh. theoet 18 Foon. "thee eA i 2 % het Sede 3 2 ry fis TE + en " Ee Z ~e f
BEBE E owe Bi B Ee By me @ © ag GB AE ge Ee
oad hed HES 2 eB Bild 9 me fe oom ME ss OS eG po 6
fe Oe ee meee ey LE ogo OB Sse 8 a ge , A ee tae
i EES BY a SLL PRE BE 2B & 5 HE ee
fom Dh pe Ek ay 8 a mg 3 Oo wo ii my & 1 OB
ben a few em Dy Bg Be od ap fe 4 me & oO OE et Be
ko TF a at BS a ey 7 rs "ry 4 vex, Co cee. weet pe 2 he tee
aot aes wok fo Cb Ps + iy SS ee oy te BF rs i
oe te a Ce ew tomat Hed fe @ ah é "ny OS EE isan
ra oy TS e oa fs we e fy Gh wer Oo pe he
gy: @ Cs ve Dg cme fy a fh a» wee me be ie
g - Boe Dim Be nn ry oe B & ty
i, Tare, a3 ae pan aa ere Eo wn om a 5 aa bat Feed eee: ee re
Pai e8e a Se % eB a. Bak
Oe cy Be Pe BR a oy Ee BS
. yee ae oe C3 {3 th aa 35 rey os JA
; ee te be web oe
te . ; ae te:
ms a ESEEE BEE
roe te fn fo
e
Sh
HE WE
Between:
'
2
3
$
2
8
herein
Petition
his
g
Q
fo imgie
:
he
$
%
Wi
x
ad
¥
x
CS
s
& Ps
ry
c
"
\
oF
&
x
s
'
¥
are directed to show cause as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and
affidavit filed therewith (copy enclosed) this WRIT PETITION should not be admitted.
IA NO: 1 OF 2019: Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in W.P., the High Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents herein to implement the proceedings issued u/s 7 of the Act by the District
Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) vide proceedings D.Dis (E9)/401/2019 at 29.01.2019
, by deleting the land to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents in Sy No.294/2 of Kanigiri Village &
Mandal, Prakasam District from the list of prohibitory lands furnished to Registration
Department u/s 22-A(1) of the Registration Act,1908 as per section 10 and rule 7 of the
Act forthwith, pending disposal of WP No. 40920 of 2019, on the file of the High Court.
The Court made the following
ORDER:
Notice before Admission.
Heard Sri Y. Nagireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondents. The grievance of the petitioners as submitted by Sri Y. Nagireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, that though the District Level Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 5 of A.P. Dotted Lands (updation in RSR) Act, 2017, issued Orders on 29.01.2019 to delete the lands existed in Sy.No.294/2 to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents of Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District, from the list of Prohibitory Lands under Section 22(A) (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, the respondents are not implementing the said order.
It appears from the proceedings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, dt. 29.01.2019, the District Collector is the Chairman of the said Committee, and the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer of concerned division, are the members and the Tahsildar of the concerned Mandal, is the member and convener of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. All these officers on examination of the entire record allowed the claim of the petitioners and consequential directions were issued to the Tahsildar, Kanigiri Mandal, who is one of the member of the said Committee, in which it was directed to update the following land in the re-settlement register and other revenue records including digitally maintained records as per Section 9 of the Act, 2017 within one month of uploading of this Order in the Mee Seva Website and submit the attested implemented copies of the RSR, ROR, Form1, IB Registers and the digitally maintained record.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that though all the officials of the Revenue Department are the members of the sald eommittes and the Tahksildar of Kanigirl Mandal, who has to implement the directions of the committes, are well aware of these proceedings for the last one year, but no action was taken to implement the directions of the District Level Scrutiny Committee.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that though this Writ Petition was Mled on OS.08.2019, till date, oxcept taking thine for getting instructions, nea counter affidavit is fied on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 te 3, whe are the respondents to answer the contentions of the petitioners.
it appears from the material available on record, respondent Nos. ito Jd are not implementing their own orders for the last 1 "4 years, which is net permissible under law. The petitioner has to suffer for the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 te 3.
in view of the above, the District Collector Le., Respondent No.d, is directed ta file his personal affidavit by 24-06-2020 stating the action taken consequent to the proceedings of the District Level Serutiny Committee dt.29.01.2019, If the personal affidavit of the iMetrict Collector is not Aled stating the status with regard te the dispute In the present Writ Petition, he shall present before this Conrt on 26.06.2020 to explain the reasans for not implementing the procesdings of the Distriet Level Scrutiny Committee.
Sdi- KR. Jaganmohan DEPUTY REGISTRAR PTROE COPY! SECTION OFFICER Te, 4 nue Deparment, State of AP. Secretariat uy Pia ' ahs é. sSainrian, District Level Serutimy Carmmitiee, Ps PEhQeaM Distr 'ot 'Gngol &. = FAXISPEED P POST)
3. The vee Haro sam -Member Convener, Oistich Level Gerutiny Corurmifes, Mandal, Prakasar vm District,
4. The ist rict Regi stra *, Shemips and Registration, Prakasam District, OQneale.
5. The Sub-Regisirar, Sarigirl, Frakasam Distnot(Addreasae Nos 1 ta 8 by RFAD alang with a copy of patition and affidavit} &. One Se to SH, Y Nagi Reddy Advocate [OFLC] c Two GOs to GP for Revenu a, Nigh Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [BY SPL. MESSENGER!) & Two fCs to SP for Stamps anc Registration, High Court OF Andhra Pradesh, BY SPL. MESSENGER)
8. One spare capy = .
.
SS & s s Ra = RS = SS = = se © = Re .
Se = « SE SESS REISE aaaiaitirniarannennnrarnanninannanascncu ance ecARCN NANA AAAI ceceneneens HIGH COURT BEY .J PATED 22RD NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION WP So 1620 of S019 DPRECTION ERIE ER Ee