Kanneganti Ramakrishna, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Between:

Kanneganti Ramakrishna S/o Narasimha Rao, Aged about 55 years, occu: Business, R/o. Flat No.306, Mount Meru Apartments, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and another.

.....Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue ( Registration & Stamps) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

The issue is substantially similar to the W.P.No.43481 of 2016 & batch decided on 30.08.2017 with reference to ventilation of the grievances for deletion of properties included in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act, 1908). However, learned counsel for petitioners contends that on the very same property issue was earlier decided by this Court and this Court has held that insofar as these properties are concerned they cannot be included in the prohibited list of properties and they are not assigned lands. 2.

In response, learned Government Pleader submits that judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, granted liberty to the Government to notify the properties, which, according to the Government are covered by the provision of Section 22-A(1) of the Act, 1908 and accordingly revised notification was issued and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the inclusion of properties claimed by them in the prohibited list of properties, it is always open to the petitioners to submit their objections before the duly constituted Committee as per the directions of the Full Bench of this Court. 3.

Having regard to the objections of the learned Government Pleader, learned counsel for petitioners seeks leave of the Court to submit representations/applications before the Committee constituted by the Government as directed by the Full Bench with 1 2016 (1) ALT 570(FB)

reference to exclusion of properties from the list of prohibited properties and also seeks leave of the Court to raise additional grounds on findings recorded by this Court regarding status of the properties in issue with reference to the directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.2235 and 2236 of 2013 and further orders passed by this Court, in pursuant to which the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders excluding the properties from the list of prohibited properties.

4.

Leave as sought for is granted. It is always open to the petitioners to raise all grounds as available in law including the earlier directions issued by this Court or any decision taken by the revenue authorities for consideration of the Committee. It is needless to observe that all those pleas raised by the petitioners shall be considered by the Committee before taking a decision. 5.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm