Allowed

Ganta Venkata Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2020WP/3474/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court held that petitioners cannot be evicted from disputed assigned land without a passed order of resumption under Section 4. The attempt to dispossess without such order and due process was declared illegal, directing respondents not to interfere until an appeal period expires.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to be dispossessed; respondents not to interfere with possession till expiry of appeal time against a resumption order.

Ganta Venkata Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.3474 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from an extent of Ac.3.06 cents belonging to 1^st petitioner, Ac.1.06 cents belonging to 2^nd petitioner in R.S.No.155 of Guddigudem village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land referred above.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that 1^st petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land in an extent of Ac.3.06 cents in R.S.No.155 of Guddigudem village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, the said land is purchased under registered sale deed dated 15.04.2003 bearing document No.334/2003 (Ac.1.04 cents), another registered sale deed dated 26.03.2003 bearing document No.269/2003 (Ac.0.98 cents) and another registered sale deed dated 27.03.2003 (an extent of Ac.1.00 cents). Similarly, 2^nd petitioner is also absolute owner of Ac.1.66 cents in R.S.No.155 of Guddigudem village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 26.03.2003 vide document No.267/2003 and another registered sale deed dated 27.03.2003 vide document No.275/2003. From the date of purchase, both the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute right. Petitioners also obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds, their names are mutated in 1B ROR, but

¶6

¶7

respondents are trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, without following the process of law, requested to declare their action as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶8

During hearing the learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contentions, whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that land in dispute is assigned land and notices in Form-I and II in compliance of Rule 3 of A.P Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short A.P Act IX of 1977) were issued to the petitioners, but no order of resumption is passed till date. Therefore, requested to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

¶9

The voluminous material produced before this Court, more particularly, No.3 adangal for R.S.No.155 would show that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property in their own right, but the contention of respondents is that it is assigned land, alienation of it is prohibited, since it is contravention of Section 3 (2) of A.P Act IX of 1977.

¶10

In any view of the matter, in view of amendment to A.P Act IX of 1977, if alienation is beyond 20 years, such alienation cannot be declared as void, such alienations are saved. However, the respondents admitted the very issuance of notices in Form-I and II, but as on date no resumption order is passed, as per the material placed on record before this Court. Till passing any order of

¶11

¶12

resumption under Section 4 of A.P Act IX of 1977, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land in dispute referred above. Even after passing resumption order, till expiry of appeal time, petitioners are entitled to continue in possession, in view of law declared by this

¶13

Court in Rahmatullah Khan and Anr. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors¹ . Therefore, the action of respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners, without following due process of law is declared as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioners, till expiry of appeal time, if any order of resumption is passed, exercising power under Section 4 of A.P Act IX of 1977.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Dated 06.03.2020 Rvk

¶18

1 2014(2) Andh LD 272

Ganta Venkata Satyanarayana v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganta Venkata Satyanarayana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S v Chiranjivi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Veerla Nagamunaiah Vs the State of Ap

M Vijayulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.M. Gopi Krishna, Chittoor Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue (Registration) Dept,. Hyd and 6 Ot

Bommireddy Siva Rami Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Ghanta Prasada Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh