2007 Supreme(AP) 422

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
J.JAYALALITHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04/13/2007
W. P. 6934 Of 2007

Headnote:

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 - sections 47 and 48 - Andhra pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfers) Rules, 1977 - Rule 3 - Section 3 - Sale deed - Partnership firm Partnership firm had purchased an extent of ac. 3. 20 under a registered sale deed from m/s. Cherukuru Suryanarayana Raju,. Under the same sale deed, the said firm purchased another extent of Acs. 4. 00 - Said firm also purchased an extent of Acs. 3. 15 gts under registered sale deed Be it noted that the petitioner and her mother were the two partners. After expiry of her mother, by necessary mutation proceedings, petitioner was recorded in the revenue accounts as owner. Petitioner alleges that before the sale was effected in favour of the firm, permission under sections 47 and 48 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 was obtained and that after coming into force the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms., exempting these lands from the purview of ULC Act - Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the third respondent is proceeding in great haste without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to verify the records and obtain the certified copies to effectively participate in the enquiry. This is vehemently denied by the learned government Pleader who made a statement that the petitioner shall be furnished with all documents if not already furnished and that the petitioners Advocate may approach the third respondent for verification of the records -Court observes that third respondent may keep in mind the statement made by the learned Government Pleader herein. As the petitioner sought for a writ of Prohibition and did not specifically challenge the show cause notice issued under Rule 3 of the Rules, the precedent cited by the learned Government pleader has no application - Exercise of jurisdiction by third respondent cannot be said to suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner has already submitted interim reply and is given liberty to file yet another explanation raising all the grounds if so advised. Needless to mention that the third respondent would consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner before passing any orders under Act - Any observations made herein above in the order are intended only for the purpose of this order - Writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed – Petition is Dismissed.