Disposed

Satti Vara Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2020WP/619/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition questioning the interference with possession of agricultural land. The court held that even if the land is government land, petitioners in settled possession cannot be evicted without following due process of law and directed respondents not to dispossess them. (39 words)

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to dispossess petitioners from the identified agricultural land except by due process of law.

Satti Vara Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.619 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents, in interfering with possession and enjoyment of agriculture land of petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in S.No.12/3, Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.12/2 belonging to 1^st petitioner and Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.12/2 belonging to 2^nd petitioner of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu 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 respondents not to interfere with possession of petitioners from land in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in S.No.12/3, Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.12/2 and Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.12/2 of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶5

It is the case of petitioners that 1^st petitioner is owner of land in an extent of Ac.1.59 cents in S.Nos.12/2 and 12/3 and 2^nd petitioner is owner of land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.12/2 and 12/3 of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. The 1^st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.1.74 cents in S.No.12/2 of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District from Tadi Veeramma under registered sale deed dated 02.05.1984 for valid consideration. 1^st petitioner also purchased an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in S.No.12/3 of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District from Bethireddy Savithri Devi under registered sale deed dated 30.03.1984 for valid consideration. Since the date of purchase,

¶6

wp_619_ 2020

¶7

2 MSM, J

¶8

1^st petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land, his name is also mutated in revenue records. At the time of marriage of 2^nd petitioner, 1^st petitioner gifted an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.2.59 cents, by executing registered gift deed dated 25.07.1995. Since then 2^nd petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of her respective extent of land.

¶9

While the matter stood thus, on 03.01.2020, 4^th respondent and his staff came to the subject land, threatened the petitioners to vacate the land immediately, when enquired, 4^th respondent informed that the land belongs to government, it will be assigned as house sites to the poor people. 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.

¶10

During hearing, the learned counsel for petitioners 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 petitioners, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶11

Undisputedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of land of an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in S.No.12/3, Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.12/2 belonging to 1^st petitioner and Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.12/2 belonging to 2^nd petitioner of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. Even assuming for a moment, that the land is government land, when petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of land, they cannot be dispossessed or evicted, without

¶12

wp_619_ 2020

¶13

3 MSM, J

¶14

following due process of law. Therefore, respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioners from Ac.0.35 cents in S.No.12/3, Ac.1.24 cents in S.No.12/2 belonging to 1^st petitioner and Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.12/2 belonging to 2^nd petitioner of Mudunuru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, except by due process of law.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶18

Dated 05.02.2020 Rvk

Satti Vara Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satti Vara Lakshmi, 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

Kuchipudi Ramamohana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasaram Nagabhushanamma Vs the State of Ap

Satupati Sreenivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velicheti Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

v Venkata Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karri Somma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh