Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Balaga Ramanamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Order :
(RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.)
Impugning the orders of the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam, Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda vide proceedings in Rc.No.1979/2021/D8, dated 23.03.2022 & Rc.No.167/2020/A, dated 18.09.2021 respectively and endorsement of the Tahsildar, Palakonda vide Letter No.167/2021/B, dated 18.10.2021, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri A.V.Pardha Saradhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, leaned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.8 and 9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.2.00 cents of land bearing survey No.84/2 situated at Nandivada village, N.K.Rajapuram, Palakonda Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District and the same was devolved upon her under Gift Settlement deed executed by her husband. Subsequently, the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the petitioner in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. He further submitted that the unoffic
The court ruled that procedural irregularities in land mutation must be rectified, emphasizing the need for proper notice and inquiry before altering land records.
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The court emphasized that revenue authorities must respect the principles of natural justice and cannot alter records without notice, especially when a civil suit is pending.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a preliminary decree in a partition suit does not conclusively determine the shares of the parties, and the authority must act independently o....
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities is limited to statutory procedures; unauthorized actions based on invalid orders do not confer legal rights over property.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.
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
