Allowed

Satupati Sreenivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2020WP/1906/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy disposed of a writ petition questioning the dispossession of three petitioners from property in Rachumarripalle village. The court directed authorities to refrain from dispossessing petitioners from their respective assigned patta lands and private land until compensation is paid under the A.P Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or statutory p

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioners from respective lands except by due process of law, specifically requiring payment of compensation under the A.P Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Satupati Sreenivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.1906 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in interfering and attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their respective land in Sy.Nos.95/2B, 96-7, 95-2A1 and 95-2A2, measuring Ac.3.56 cents, Ac.1.65 cents Ac.1.40 cents and Ac.4.90 cents respectively situated at Rachumarripalle village, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, without any notice and without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct respondents, not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and dispossess the petitioners, except by due process of law.

¶5

The mother of first petitioner Satupati Laxmamma was assigned an extent of Ac.3.56 cents in Sy.No.95/2B situated at Rachumarripalle village, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by issue of ‘D-Form’ patta vide DKT No.10/1406, dated 02.06.1997 and also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in the name of mother of first petitioner, mutated her name in revenue records. After death of mother of first petitioner, he succeeded the estate of Laxmamma, continuing in possession and enjoyment of property, without any interruption from anybody. Similarly, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brother, their father Satupati Venkatesu, obtained assignment to an extent of Ac.1.65 cents and Ac.1.40 cents in Sy.Nos.96-7 and 95-2A1 respectively, situated at Rachumarripalle

¶6

wp_1906_ 2020

¶7

2 MSM, J

¶8

village, Pulivendula Mandal, Kadapa District, obtained ‘D-Form’ patta bearing No.DKT 14/1406, dated 02.06.1997. Basing on the said D-Form patta, revenue officials issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Apart from that father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 also purchased land measuring Ac.4.90 cents in Sy.No.95/2A2 situated at Rachumarripalle village, Pulivendula Mandal, Kadapa District from its lawful owner Venkata Nagi Reddy, S/o.Veluru Venkata Narayana by sale deed dated 06.06.2000. After death of father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, they have divided the above said property, second petitioner was allotted Ac.3.05 cents and third petitioner was allotted Ac.4.90 cents. Therefore, they became absolute owners of property, continuing in possession of the property.

¶9

While the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.3 and 4, visited land on 20.01.2020, demanded the petitioners to hand over the land for the purpose of allotment to fifth respondent Corporation. Therefore, the highhanded action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is questioned in the present petition, requested to issue direction as sought for.

¶10

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments, placed on record written instructions dated 30.01.2020 to contend that respondents agreed to pay compensation for the land of an extent of Ac.4.90 cents, allotted to third petitioner, whereas petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to exgratia as per

¶11

3 MSM, J

¶12

wp_1906_ 2020

¶13

G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶14

It is an admitted fact that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of assigned land, D-Form was issued to their ancestors, the petitioners succeeded the same, continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property. D-Form pattas were issued in favour of mother of first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, are placed on record, besides producing copies of pattadar passbooks, title deeds and adangal copies to establish that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property, whereas, third petitioner is in possession of private land. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled to dispossess the petitioners from their respective land, except by due process of law, more particularly, when petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are beneficiaries under D-Form patta, being landless poor persons. The procedure prescribed under Section 3 read with Rule 3 of Rules framed under Act IX of 1977 is to be followed, even to dispossess the petitioners, if there is any violation of conditions of patta. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 violated the conditions of patta, but they intend to allot the land to fifth respondent Corporation. In such case the procedure to acquire such land under A.P Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short Act 30 of 2013) is to be followed and pay compensation to petitioners. Without payment of compensation, acquiring the land in terms of procedure prescribed under Act 30 of 2013, petitioners cannot be

¶15

4 MSM, J wp_1906_ 2020

¶16

dispossessed from the land. Hence, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective land, except by due process of law.

¶17

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no costs.

¶18

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

Dated 04.02.2020 Rvk

Satupati Sreenivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satupati Sreenivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chekuri Venkata Radhakrishna Vs the State of Ap

K.Sanni Babu Vs the State of Ap

Molpgu Venkataramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kuchipudi Ramamohana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasaram Nagabhushanamma Vs the State of Ap

Kamma Pullayya, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh