Disposed

Renati Lakshmidevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2020WP/3147/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the dispossession of the petitioner regarding government land. Directing respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession, the court left the matter open for the third respondent to reassign the land if available for landless poor.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession in the assigned land extent; left it open for the third respondent to reassign remaining land if available for landless poor.

Renati Lakshmidevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.3147 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus , questioning the action of respondents in restraining the petitioner from enjoying the land to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.91/2, situated at Devisettypalli Village, Seetharamapuram Mandal and resuming the land for house sites without following due process of law, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the subject land.

¶5

It is the case of petitioner that DKT patta was granted in favour of the petitioner on 15-12-2006 by the Tahsildar, the 3^rd respondent herein assigning the land to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.91-2 of Devisettypalli Village vide File No.F.Dis.No.176/1417, dated 15-12-2006. The total extent of land in S.No.91 is Ac.6.96 cents. Out of Ac.6.96 cents, an extent of Ac.2.26 cents formed layout and allotted house sites to the backward class people of Devisettypalli Village, and an extent of Ac.2.50 cents was assigned to the petitioner. The remaining extent in S.No.91 was assigned to Kondeti Ramanamma, who is not resident of Devisettypalli Village and the same is kept vacant.

¶6

The petitioner is eligible for grant of assignment of Government land. The then Mandal Revenue Officer after following the procedure has assigned an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.91/2 on 15-12-2006. Since the year 2006 onwards, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land assigned to her. But, without initiating the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Act or any other law the respondents are trying to dispossess this petitioner and restraining the petitioner from enjoying the same and requested to pass appropriate order declaring the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

¶8

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition.

¶9

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments placed on record the written instructions, dt.10-02-2020 alleging that the land in Sy.No.91 consists of Ac.6.96 cents, out of it, after deleting the land of this petitioner an extent of Ac.1.53 cents of government land is available and they proposed to assign the said land to the landless poor. There are 10 beneficiaries of Devisettypalli Village and 30 beneficiearies of Jayapuram Village in need of house sites. Therefore, the revenue authorities are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land.

¶10

In view of the written instructions placed on record and recording submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of this petitioner to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.91-2 of Devisettypalli Village assigned in File No.F.Dis.No.176/1417, dated 15-12-2006, leaving it open to the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate steps for assignment to the landless poor if the land is available in Sy.No.91 of Devisettypalli Village.

¶11

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶13

___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

Date: 11-02-2020 IS

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.3147 of 2020

¶18

Date: 11-02-2020

¶19

Renati Lakshmidevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renati Lakshmidevi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kondeti Rama Krishna Vs The State of andhra Pradesh

Pedagamatta Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dandamudi Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PosimsettiMallikharjunaRao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Datla Veera Venkata Narasimha Siva Rama Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malta Someswar Rao, Vs the State of Ap