Allowed

Kunjam Venkanna Dora, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Jul 2019WP/5531/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by a Scheduled Tribe member challenging the arbitrary dispossession of scheduled land. The court held that the respondents, lacking authority or due process, cannot dispossess the petitioner. It directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner or demolish the tin shed without an opportunity of hearing and adherence to established legal procedures.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land or tin shed without affording an opportunity of hearing and following due procedure of law.

Kunjam Venkanna Dora, Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.5531 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from her land an extent of Hc.1.12 in Survey No.60/1 of Gandhi Nagaram village of Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District highhandedly 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 belongs to a Schedule Tribe i.e. Koya Community and is permanent resident of Gandhi Nagaram village of Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner states that his grandfather late Kunjam Ganganna Dora was granted D-form patta for an extent of Hc.1.12 in Survey No.60/1 of Gandhi Nagaram village of Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which is still in force. The petitioner inherited the said land after the death of his father and that the revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in his favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is in physical possession and personally cultivating the said land by raising cashew nut garden and also residing by constructing a tin shed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 4, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Transfer Regulations, highhandedly trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

MGR, J

W.P.No.5531 of 2019

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

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land is without jurisdiction and without following due process of law.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, such as pattadar pass books, title deeds and adangals, it appears that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land 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.

¶12

For the above discussion, this court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Hc.1.12 in Survey Nos.60/1 of Gandhi Nagaram village of Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and tin shed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following due procedure established by law.

¶13

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.

¶14

________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

Date: 17-07-2019 Ksn

MGR, J

W.P.No.5531 of 2019

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶20

Writ Petition No.5531 of 2019

¶21

17^th July 2019

¶22

Ksn

Kunjam Venkanna Dora, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjam Venkanna Dora, 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

Jonnala Arjuna Rao Vs the State of Ap

Karnam Naidu Vs the State of Ap

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