Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA
B RAMI REDDY – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
WP/484/2023
LAND REVENUE - PROHIBITORY LIST - DELETION - JURISDICTION - 5TH RESPONDENT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE APPLICATIONS SEEKING FOR DELETION OF PROPERTIES FROM THE PROHIBITORY LIST - DISTRICT COLLECTOR IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH SUCH APPLICATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the impugned order of the 5th respondent rejecting the petitioner's claim for deletion of land from the prohibitory list. The petitioner contended that the 5th respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that it was contrary to the circular issued by the 2nd respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 5th respondent had exceeded his powers and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The court held that the District Collector was the competent authority to deal with applications seeking to delete property from the prohibited category list, as per relevant Government Orders and the circular referred to above.
Issues: Whether the 5th respondent had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for deletion of land from the prohibitory list.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the relevant Government Orders and the circular issued by the 2nd respondent to hold that the District Collector was the competent authority to deal with applications seeking to delete property from the prohibited category list.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent. The court directed the District Collector to take necessary action with regard to the petitioner's application for deletion of the property in accordance with Law, after giving an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the th impugned order of the 5 respondent vide proceedings dated 28.11.2022, whereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for deletion of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Survey No.404/1(old Survey No.314/P) situated at Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from the prohibitory list, without any authority and jurisdiction and
contrary to the circular issued by the 2 respondent dated 04.05.2022 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to delete the subject matter property from the prohibitory list.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at stage of admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, inter alia, submits that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5992 of 2020 on 05.10.2020, the petitioner made an application on rd
22.10.2022 before the 3 respondent for deletion of the subject matter property from the prohibiotory list. While the matter stood th thus, the 5 respondent issued notice dated 24.09.2022 to the petitioner and questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32066 of 2022 and an interim order was passed by this th Court directing the 5 respondent herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter property, pending consideration of the representation dated rd
22.10.2022 before the 3 respondent. He further submits that th though the 5 respondent is not the competent authority, he passed the proceedings dated 28.11.2022 impugned in the present Writ Petition rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is
contrary to the Circular of the 2 respondent dated 04.05.2022.
Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, this Court th is of the considered opinion that the 5 respondent exceeded his powers and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. It is the concerned Collector who is competent to deal with the applications seeking to delete the property from prohibited category list as per relevant Government Orders and the said aspect is clear from the Circular referred to above.
5. In view of the undisputed position, the impugned th proceedings dated 28.11.2022 passed by the 5 respondent are set aside, as he has no jurisdiction to deal with the applications seeking for deletion of properties from the prohibitory list. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The District Collector, who is the competent authority shall take necessary action with regard to the application filed by the petitioner for deletion of the property in accordance with Law, after giving an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.484 of 2023
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
