Disposed

Pedagamatta Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2020WP/2503/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued a direction preventing the 4th respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from specific land holdings without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to dispossess petitioners from land of an extent of 3787 Sq.Yds, 2360 Sq.Yds and 440 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.27/5 of Timmireddypalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, except

Pedagamatta Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

+THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.2503 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of 4^th respondent herein/Tahsildar, Chinatalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, in contemplating to dispossess the petitioner from land of an extent of 3787 Sq.Yds, 2360 Sq.Yds and 440 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.27/5 of Timmireddypalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct 4^th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from land of an extent of 3787 Sq.Yds, 2360 Sq.Yds and 440 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.27/5 of Timmireddypalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶5

It is the case of petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of an extent of 6187 Sq.Yds, having purchased the same from Venkata Naga Vara Santha Sharmila and her daughter Naga Andal Chaitanya Susma under registered sale deed dated 30.07.2015 and 440 Sq.Yds having purchased the same from Chandrasekhar and his daughter Naga Andal Chaitanya Susma under registered sale deed dated 30.07.2015, possession was also delivered to the petitioner.

¶6

While the matter stood thus, on 24.01.2020 4^th respondent and his authorities came to the subject land, demanded the petitioner to vacate the land, stating that the land is gramakantam land. Such action on the part of 4^th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, requested to issue direction as prayed for.

¶7

wp_2503_ 2020

¶8

2 MSM, J

¶9

During hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition, whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), fairly accepted to follow due process of law, to evict or dispossess the petitioner, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶10

Undisputedly, the petitioner is owner and possessor of land in total extent of 6587 Sq.Yds, having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds dated 30.07.2015. Even assuming for a moment, that the land is gramakantam land and required by government, for any purpose, when petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of land, he cannot be dispossessed or evicted, without following due process of law as held by Apex Court in Rema Gowda (dead) by Lrs. V. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs¹ . Therefore, respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of 3787 Sq.Yds, 2360 Sq.Yds and 440 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.27/5 of Timmireddypalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, except by due process of law.

¶11

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

Dated 10.02.2020 Rvk

¶15

1 (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769

Pedagamatta Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pedagamatta Srinivasa Rao 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahal Babajan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Dasari Appayamma, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Yaganti Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs the State of Ap

Kondeti Rama Krishna Vs The State of andhra Pradesh

Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

.Kadali Venkateswarao Vs State of Ap