S.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9517 OF 2017 ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.4.63 cents in S.No.1257/D1, D2, D3 and D4 of Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, having purchased the same through different sale deeds and thereafter petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records. Having proposed to sell the subject land, the petitioner approached the registering authority to know the market value. The concerned authority informed the petitioner that some extent of land was made into house plots and therefore, the value per acre is increased from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.58,08,000/-. For rectification of anomalies like exorbitant amounts fixed towards market value, there is a procedure under A.P.Revision of Market Value Guidelines, vide G.O.Ms.No.301, Revenue (REG-I) Department , dated 04.05.

1998 and as per Rule 13, the committee consists of Chairman, Joint Collector, Members Deputy Inspector General, Revenue Divisional Officer and Convener District Registrar. As per the said Rule, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.11.2016 to the 4th respondent for revising the market value as per Actual market value. Pursuant to the said representation, the 5th respondent vide letter No.

Registrar Orvakal and requested him to visit the place before placing any proposal before the Joint Collector. Inspite of the same, no action has been initiated so far. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though as per Rule 13 of A.P.Revision of Market Value Guidelines, 1998 the committee constituting respondents 2 to 5 has authority to rectify the anomalies, the respondents are not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that appropriate action will be taken as per Rules 13 of A.P.Revision of Market Value Guidelines, 1998. In view of the above facts and circumstances, since the grievance of the petitioner is already placed before the respondents, they are directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as per Rule 13 A.P.Revision of Market Value Guidelines, 1998 and take action accordingly within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 22.03.2017 dv