Partly allowed

Boya Mahendra v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2020WP/21043/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a handicapped person, challenged eviction from agricultural land without notice and enquiry. Court directed authorities to follow due process including prior notice and enquiry before dispossession and restricted immediate eviction pending such proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land till authorities give prior notice and conduct an enquiry.

Boya Mahendra Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.21043 of 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in insisting the petitioner to vacate from the agricultural land in an extent of Acres 4.90 cents in survey No.174/1 of Gokulapadu Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District, without issuing any notice and conducting enquiry as illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice.

¶4

Petitioner’s case briefly is that he is a handicapped person with 90% disability and he lost his parents in his childhood and therefore, he made a representation to the 2^nd respondent for assignment of land to eak out his livelihood and the same was recommended to 4^th respondent by the 2^nd respondent vide Rc.E2/2749/2018, dated 25.10.2018 and the 4^th respondent, after conducting enquiry, in turn addressed a letter in Rc.B.347/2018, dated 11.12.2018 and recommended for assignment of the land in an extent of Acres 4.90 cents in survey No.174/1 of Gokulapadu Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. The further case of the petitioner is that though D – patta was not formally issued in his favour, however, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land and recognizing his possession, e – pattadar passbook was issued in his favour. His grievance is that, now, the revenue authorities, without conducting

¶5

¶6

enquiry and without issuing notice, are trying to evict him unduly, obviously, to assign the said land in favour of third parties.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on written instructions, would submit that the petitioner has not been in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acres 4.90 cents in survey No.174/1 of Gokulapadu Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District and he has not raised any crop and the authorities are going to take action by following due process of law.

¶8

In that view, this writ petition is disposed of observing that in case, the respondents propose to resume the land in possession of petitioner, they shall follow due process of law by giving prior notice to petitioner and conducting enquiry as contemplated under law. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the aforesaid land.

¶9

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for

¶10

consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

07.01.2020

¶13

Note: issue C.C. by 09.01.2020. B/o.SS

Boya Mahendra v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Mahendra v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prayaga Ramakrishna, S/o Venkat Ramayya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kola Yesubabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Haritha Builders and Developers, Vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-I

Korukonda Venkata Satagopa Rarnanuja Bhattar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aalavala . Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Matta Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh