Allowed

Jonnala Arjuna Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Jul 2019WP/3531/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the eviction of the petitioner from his ancestral house property in Sarabhavaram village by the 3rd respondent without issuing notice or following due process. The Court held the action illegal and arbitrary, directing respondents to refrain from dispossessing the petitioner until an opportunity of hearing is afforded and due legal procedure is followed.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the house property bearing D.No.1-111 without affording an opportunity of hearing and following due procedure established by law.

Jonnala Arjuna Rao Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.3531 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in dispossessing the petitioner from his house property bearing D.No. 1-111, situated in an extent of 130 square yards of land situated in Sarabhavaram village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he is owner and possessor of house property bearing D.No.1-111, situated in an extent of 130 square yards of land in Sarabhavaram village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, having been inherited from his ancestor and the said property is situated in schedule area in East Godavari District and the petitioner is a non-tribal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent and his subordinates visited the house of the petitioner in the first week of March, 2019 and insisting him not to enter into the house property. The respondent authorities, without issuing any notice or without initiating any proceedings, are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject land. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the

MGR, J

W.P.No.3531 of 2019

subject land is without jurisdiction and without following due process of law.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, such as adangal and the house tax receipts, it appears that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and that the respondent authorities, without any authority or without following due process of law, are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, which is arbitrary , illegal and contrary to law.

¶13

In that view of the matter, this court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the house property bearing D.No.1-111, situated in an extent of 130 square yards of land situated in Sarabhavaram village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following due procedure established by law.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________

Date: 17-07-2019 Ksn

MGR, J

W.P.No.3531 of 2019

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶21

Writ Petition No.3531 of 2019

¶22

17^th July 2019

¶23

Ksn

Jonnala Arjuna Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jonnala Arjuna Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T v Nirmala Vs Chairman MD

K. Premchand Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jetla Venkayamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karnam Naidu Vs the State of Ap

M.B.V. Ramana Vs the State of Ap

Kunjam Venkanna Dora, Vs the State of Ap