Disposed

Botta Chinnabulli, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2020WP/2695/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the demolition of her house without notice, seeking a writ of mandamus under Articles 14 and 300-A. The respondent admitted the petitioner's possession and contended that properties assigned to the petitioner by competent authority cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioner from her property except by following the due process of law.

Botta Chinnabulli, Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2695 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in trying to demolish/dispossess the petitioner’s house constructed in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.68 of Y.B. Patnam Village, Gannavaram Gram Panchayat, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatam District, pursuant to D-Form Patta granted in Rc.No.107/2017/A dated 02.12.2017 without notice, without following the procedure, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent not to demolish/disposes the house constructed in the petitioner in Sy.No.68 of Y.B. Patnam Village, Gannavaram Gram Panchayat, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatam District, without following the procedure.”

¶7

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land, by following due process of law.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession of his land and the same was assigned to this petitioner by the competent authority and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶9

Undisputedly, land was assigned to this petitioner by the competent authority. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government, but the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. In such case, when the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from her property, except by due process of law.

¶10

MSM,J

¶11

¶12

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs.

¶13

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶14

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶15

Date:06.02.2020 sp

Botta Chinnabulli, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Botta Chinnabulli, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satti Vara Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velicheti Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

v Venkata Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

Borsu Subba Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Satti Suresh Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

U.V. Krishnam Raju Vs the State of Ap