Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI
MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI, J
Peethala Papayamma – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner – Respondent
ORDER :
(B.S. BHANUMATHI, J .)
This revision is preferred against the order, dated 07.06.2022, allowing the revision filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein, in Ref. No.Sett.II(1)/156/2017, under Section 14A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam passed in D.Dis.No.11049/2015/C, dt.07.06.2017, confirming the order, dated 31.12.2013, of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, in AIP No.32 of 2013 granting ryotwari patta in favour of Smt. Peethala Papayamma w/o late Apparao for an extent of Ac.14.00 cents in Sy.No.30 part of Vepagunta village covered by T.D No.3146.
2. Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1st respondent; Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2; Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent; and Sri N.V.S. Prasada Varma, learned counsel representing Sri B. Jagadish Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.7.
3. The chronology of events that lead to filing this revision petition, briefly stated, is as follows:
The court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles, specifically the right to be heard, in the context of administrative decisions under the Inams Abolition Act.
The court established that jurisdictional overreach by administrative authorities can invalidate their orders, necessitating adherence to procedural fairness.
The Director of Survey and Settlement lacks jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 5(2) for an appealable order, as per Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove that the subject lands are ryoti lands and have vested with the Government under the Ryotwari Act, 1948, in order to obtai....
Point of Law- Section 11 (a) of the Act it is clear that every ryot who claims for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a) of the Act has to fulfill the following requirements.(i) the land claim....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the Settlement Officer's order reached finality, issuing Patta for the same land on different grounds is not sustainable in the eye of la....
The court held that petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to Ryotwari Patta and did not challenge the grant to Inamdars within the statutory period, leading to dismissal of their petition....
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
