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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 26352

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Bollini Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 3767/2021



APHC010059392021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3767/2021 Between:

Bollini Rama Krishna and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. K SRINIVAS The Court made the following order:

The short grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities without issuing any notice or without following due procedure contemplated under the law, entered the names of respondent Nos.4 & 5 by deleting the petitioners’ name in the revenue records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in R.S.No.272-1 and an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.272-3 of Kananaganapalli Village and Mandal, Anathapur District.

2. Heard Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners’ assignment with regard to the subject property was cancelled, and the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint-Collector, which was also dismissed. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that assailing the order of the Joint- Collector, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner and the same was also dismissed. As such, the petitioners cannot claim any right to question the mutation of the unofficial respondents’ names in the revenue records. If the petitioners ultimately succeed in obtaining the assignment, he is always at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for mutation by moving an appropriate application in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to question the order of the Commissioner.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________

235 WRIT PETITION NO: 3767/2021

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