Dismissed

M Vijayulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2020WP/5490/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging respondent interference in disputed government land. The Court held that land character cannot be decided at admission but directed Respondents not to interfere with petitioners' possession except by due process.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioners' possession except by due process of law.

M Vijayulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5490 of 2020

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondents 2 to 4, their men, agents and servants from causing any sort of interference in or over the land bearing Sy.No.129/B1BA, in an extent of Ac.4.60 cents, situated at Ponakal Panchayat, Ponakal Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, without following due process of law, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the subject property.

¶6

It is the case of petitioner that the land in Sy.No.129/B1BA, in an extent of Ac.4.60 cents, situated at Ponakal Gram Panchayat, Ponakal Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District, which belongs to one Seshanna, who sold the same to one Dubbanna under a registered deed bearing document No.862 of 1939 in the year 1939. The said Dubbanna sold the said land to one T.Chinna Madanna in the year 1947 through registered sale deed. From the date of purchase, the said Chinna Madanna was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his life time. After the death of Madanna, his three sons namely Pedda Salanna, Nadipi Salanna and Chinna Salanna being the legal heirs were in possession and enjoyment of the same, and they are also died. Thereafter the petitioners being represented them as legal heirs succeeded the property in dispute and they are in possession of the same since the date of death of their ancestors. Therefore the petitioners are the owners of lands and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Now, the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property without any manner of right and without following the procedure prescribed under law. The petitioners produced title deed and adangal for the fasili 1424 wherein the petitioners Dubbanna and Madanna were shown as pattadars but Ternikanti

¶7

¶8

Madanna is shown as possessor in an extent of Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.129/B1BA.

¶9

But, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on

¶10

record the written instructions dt.27-02-2020 specifically stated as follows:-

¶11

1. The Sy.No.129/B to an extent of Ac.20.40 cents of land is classified as dotted land (Government dry) as per the RSR of Ponakal Village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District. So, the land belong to Government;

¶12

Since the petitioners’ land is Government land, there is no cultivation either by the petitioners or others. At present the land is fallow land;

¶13

1. The Government has not taken any steps to take possession of the petitioners’ lands as alleged by the petitioners;

¶14

1. Since the land is Government land the respondents (Government) is at liberty to take possession of the lands if required to the Government for the public purpose;

¶15

As such, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the respondents are not taken any steps to take possession of the petitioners’ lands, and the allegations leveled by the petitioners in the writ affidavit are far from truth. Hence, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested to dismiss the writ petition, at the stage of admission.

¶16

In view of submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, there is absolutely no apprehension about interference by the respondents with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands and the petitioners approached this Court with utmost haste apprehending dispossession. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also sought permission to take appropriate action for eviction of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶17

In view of the admission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue about possession of the petitioners over the subject land and it is supported by documentary evidence like adangal for fasili 1424, the nature of land cannot be decided at this stage in the writ petition. However, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, except by due process of law.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 05-03-2020

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.5490 of 2020

¶26

Date: 05-03-2020

¶27

M Vijayulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Vijayulu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirumalasetty Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudala Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelamanchili Saibaba Lakshmana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S v Chiranjivi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Veerla Nagamunaiah Vs the State of Ap

Pamulapati Satyanarayana Reddy Vs the State of Ap