Pamula Srinivas Rao,S/O.Nageswara Rao, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2661 OF 2017 ORDER:

It is the case of the petitioner he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural landed property admeasuring Acs.4.45 in Sy.No.449/1 of Pangidigudem revenue village, having purchased the same through agreement of sale dated 12.05.2006 and that the name of the petitioner is also recorded in revenue records in adangal/pahanies in enjoyer column. That the 3rd respondent applied to the 2nd respondent to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds by claiming that one of the vendors of the petitioner was his wife and after her demise he succeeded the property. On the said application, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 12.12.2016 asking the petitioner to produce the documents of right, title and interest over the subject property. The petitioner made representation on 24.12.2016 and same was received by the 2nd respondent on 28.12.2016 and that the 2nd respondent is under legal obligation to consider the said objection. As no action is being taken, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is about to consider the representation of the 3rd respondent, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the 3rd respondent is claiming the subject property through his wife, who is stated to have assigned the subject property. In this case, it is to be seen that the writ petition is filed only on mere apprehension. Having issued notice by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has to consider the objections of the petitioner and it is not known on what basis the petitioner is making assertions. The 2nd respondent having issued notice to the petitioner, is bound to take into consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of the subject property in accordance with law. In view of the same, I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, subject to above observations.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 30-01-2017 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2661 OF 2017 Date: 30.01.2017 kvs