Disposed

challa nagamalleswara rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2020WP/11251/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage based on a submission by the Government Pleader that no proposal to assign the land existed. The Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject land until evicted by due process of law.

challa nagamalleswara rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.11251 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with possession and enjoyment of D-Form patta property in an extent of Ac.1-48 cent in D.No.235/4 of Bhimavaram village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land without notice, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and consequently, direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioner that originally maternal grandfather of this petitioner by name Kaluva Chakrapani obtained DKT patta No.62/1 for an extent of Ac.1-48 cents in Sy.No.235/4, situated in Bhimavaram village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, vide proceedings, dated 29.10.1995. and he was in possession of the subject property. The petitioner’s parents pre-deceased to his grandfather. During life time of his grandfather, he executed a gift deed, dated 16.08.2016 bequeathing the property in his favour and thereafter, his grandfather died in the year, 2016. Therefore the petitioner became the owner of property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. But, the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and wanted to take possession of the subject property to assign the same to landless poor under ‘Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu’ scheme. This action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner requested to

¶5

issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner.

¶6

Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition, whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that as on today there is no proposal to assign the land in survey No.235/4 of Bhimavaram village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, and the respondents are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property. Copy of the instructions is exhibited during video conferencing and agreed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land except by due process of law.

¶7

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.1-48 cents in survey No.235/4 of Bhimavaram village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, as the petitioner became the owner of property by virtue of gift from his maternal grandfather and he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and such interference with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property by the respondents without following due process of law is illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

Recording the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I find that it is a fit case to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property and not to dispossess him from the said property unless he is duly evicted by due process of law.

¶9