SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
M/s. Social Unit for Health and Improvement SUCHI – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20545 of 2020
Decided On : 25-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rajendra Bussa.

Point of law: Demand for justice is not a matter of form but a matter of substance and it is necessary that a “proper and sufficient demand has to be made.” The demand must be made to the proper authority and not to an authority which is not in a position to perform its duty in the manner demanded. It is suggested that the Court should not fossilize this rule into something rigid and inflexible but keep it as flexible.

Headnote:

Registration Act - Section 22-A - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Issue of Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner is claiming to be owner of plot equivalent to cents out of total extent - Unfortunately said property was included in list of prohibited properties notified - It is contended that subject land is exclusive private land registered with respondent vide document in favor of petitioner's society document - Petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of property - When respondent tried to dispossess petitioner from above said society land petitioner approached High Court by filing challenging inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 wherein this Court directed to maintain status quo as on and it is pending for adjudication - At time of filing above writ petition petitioner society was not aware of issuance of Revenue Department as copy was not served on petitioner.

Finding of the court :

In Statesman Finding Committee Court opined that demand for justice is not a matter of form but a matter of substance and it is necessary that a proper and sufficient demand has to be made - Demand must be made to proper authority and not to an authority which is not in a position to perform its duty in manner demanded - It is suggested that Court should not fossilize this rule into something rigid and inflexible but keep it as flexible - Law is well settled that there must be a demand from citizen and denial by State authorities - In present case petitioner did not make any demand to de-notify or delete property from list of prohibited properties notified or included in prohibitory properties list.

Result : Writ Petition Dismissed

ORDER :

1. M/s. Social Unit for Health and Improvement filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus:

    (i) declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 581, Revenue (Assn.V) Department, dated 19.11.2018 for allotment of land on lease basis for a period of 33 years relating to petitioner's Plot Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 14, 20, 23 to 30, 31, 32 and 40 in Sy. No. 280/2 to an extent of total 55674 Sq. Ft. or 6186 Sq. Yds. equivalent to Ac. 1.27 1/3 cents out of total extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situated at Kattamanchi Village, Muraganipalle, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same.

(ii) to direct respondent Nos.1 to 6 to withdraw the prohibitory list submitted to respondent No. 7 under Section 22-A of the Registration Act relating to Plot Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 14, 20, 23 to 30, 31, 32 and 40 in Sy. No. 280/2 to an extent of total 55674 Sq. Ft. or 6186 Sq. Yds. equivalent to Ac. 1.27 1/3 cents out of total extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situated at Kattamanchi Village, Muraganipalle, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District.

(iii) to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to delete the name of respondent No. 8 in all revenue records including web-land/aponline relating to Sy. No. 280/2 to an extent of total 55674 Sq. Ft. or 6186 Sq. Yds. equalent to Ac. 1.27 1/3 cents out of total extent of Ac. 2.00 gts situated at Kattamanchi Village, Muraganipalle, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District, by restoring the petitioners society name in all revenue records.

(iv) to declare the action of respondent No. 1 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14,16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of plot Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 14, 20, 23 to 30, 31, 32 and 40 in Sy. No. 280/2 to an extent of total 55674 Sq. Ft. or 6186 Sq. Yds. equivalent to Ac. 1.27 1/3 cents out of total extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situated at Kattamanchi Village, Muraganipalle, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. Unfortunately, the said property was included in the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

3. It is contended that the subject land is exclusive private land, registered with the 7th respondent vide document No. 4127 of 1997 on 31.07.1997 in favour of the petitioner's society, document No. 779 of 1943 dated 12.02.1943, document No. 1700 of 1979 dated 16.04.1979, document No. 1701 of 1979, dated 16.04.1979, document No. 1702 of 1979 dated 16.04.1979, document No. 1704 of 1979 dated 16.04.1979, document No. 4874 of 1979, dated 29.08.1979, document No. 4875 of 1979, dated 29.08.1979, document No. 5339 of 1979, dated 12.09.1979. The petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. When respondent Nos.2 to 6 tried to dispossess the petitioner from the above said society land, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing W.P. No. 4454 of 2019 challenging the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 6, wherein this Court directed to maintain status quo as on date i.e. 01.04.2019 and it is pending for adjudication. At the time of filing the above writ petition, the petitioner the petitioner's society was not aware of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 581 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 19.11.2018 as the copy was not served on the petitioner.

4. The further contention of the petitioner is that with great difficulty, obtained copy of G.O.Ms. No. 581, Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 19.11.2018, filed the present writ petition against the official and unofficial respondents herein. The land was originally agricultural land, it was converted into plots by obtaining necessary permission from the Moriganipalle Gram Panchayat vide PR No. 9 (3) 27-3-81. In the year 2011, when some private persons t

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top