CHEKURI HARI NARAYANA vs THE STATE OF AP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.940 OF 2023 Between:- Chekuri Hari Narayana … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Ms.Putty Mounica Counsel for R.1 to R.5 : The G.P. for Revenue ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2.

The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the 4th respondent in disposing of the petitioner’s claim petition/application dated 11.11.2022 filed for grant of ryotwari settlement patta in respect of the subject matter land as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to consider the said application.

2 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, advanced arguments, inter alia stating that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Acs.4.00 in survey No.47/3 (old survey No.24) of Gundala Village, Yetapaka Mandal, Alluri Seetha Rama Raju District.

She submits that the petitioner made a claim petition as an interested party for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the subject land vide application dated 11.11.2022.

She submits that pursuant to the said application, the 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent to enquire into the matter, but so far no action has been taken.

She submits that due to inaction of the 4th respondent in considering the application of the petitioner, he is deprived of getting the benefits i.e., crop loan, rythu bharosa etc., from the Government and thereby put to irreparable loss.

She submits that unless the 4th respondent is directed to take expeditious action on the petitioner’s application, the petitioner would be subject to great hardship.

4. rdship.

4.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, placed a copy of the written instructions 3 dated 09.1.2023 received from the 5th respondent for perusal of this Court.

5.

As seen from the said instructions, it appears that the 5th respondent issued an endorsement dated 09.1.2023 to the effect that the 5th respondent has no authority to grant ryotwari patta in respect of the scheduled areas.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner made application to the 4th respondent and the application is pending consideration before him.

In such circumstances, the endorsement of the 5th respondent is not tenable.

6.

Be that as it may.

So far, the 4th respondent has not taken any action on the petitioner’s application dated 11.11.2022 and therefore this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to take appropriate action on the said application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4 7.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J January 18, 2023. vasu