Allowed

D Ramanamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2020WP/10114/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the 3rd respondent's attempt to evict her from property occupied after her father's death. Conceding the petitioner's possession, the court directed the respondents not to dispossess her without due process of law and disposed of the petition at admission.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law.

D Ramanamma Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶2

W.P.No. 10114 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :-

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶5

At the consent of both the counsel, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶6

The petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent, in trying to evict her from the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.799/2, situated in Reddipalli Village, Adoor Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

The contention of the petitioner is that originally the property in question was assigned to her father through DKT No.286/4, dated 20-06-1985 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and after his demise, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While the matter stood thus, the 3^rd respondent, without following due process of law, tried to evict her from the property in question is the main grievance in this writ petition.

¶8

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue has fairly concedes that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

¶9

This Court time and again has observed that when the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, he/she cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. In

¶10

¶11

this case also, according to the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶14

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J

¶15

13^TH JULY , 2020 TSNR

D Ramanamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Ramanamma 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

R Babu Vs State of Ap

Utterelli Syamala, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Palli Bala Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mopuram Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Nagaraja Naidu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Devineni Prabhakar Naidu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh