Disposed

Muddada Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jan 2020WP/857/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning alleged alienation of assigned lands, the Single Judge provisioned a two-month period for filing an appeal and stay application. The court granted liberty to apply for a stay, directing respondents not to take coercive steps against petitioners during this interim.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal within two months and apply for stay; restraint on coercive dispossession till then.

Muddada Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.857 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment, representing the respondents.

¶4

The petitioners’ case is that some of them are the assignees and some of them are legal representatives of the original assignee and they are in possession of different parcels of land i.e. 1^st petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.58 cents in S.No.104/1; 2^nd petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.54 cents in S.No.104/1 and 3^rd petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.58 cents in S.No.104/1 of Singanabanda village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Their grievance is that of late, the 4^th respondent issued Form-I notice dated 02.12.2019 stating as if the petitioners have alienated their lands. The petitioners have submitted their explanation dated 12.12.2019. But without conducting any enquiry, the respondents are now trying to dispossess them.

¶5

Learned Government Pleader for Assignment on written instructions, would submit that after receiving explanation of the petitioners, the 4^th respondent passed a detailed order on 09.01.2020 holding that the petitioners have alienated their assigned lands to Dokara Lakshmi, Dokara Paidamma, Routhu Narasimhulu and Karbhuktha Appalanaidu and those persons are now in possession of the lands and

¶6

¶7

therefore, eviction proceedings are initiated. He produced copy of the order in Rc.No.367/2019/C/dt.09.01.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that copy of the order has not been served on the petitioners and today only copy is made available by the learned Government Pleader and in that view, time may be granted to them to file appeal before the concerned authority and seek for stay and till then, their possession may not be disturbed.

¶9

In view of the respective submissions, this writ petition is closed giving liberty to the petitioners to file appeal within two months from today and may apply for stay of the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent. Till then, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps to dispossess the petitioners from the writ petition mentioned lands pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2020. No order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

13^th January, 2020

¶13

Note : Furnish copy today. B/O pvd

Muddada Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muddada Narayana, 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

B.Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasireddy Venkateswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T Koteswaramma Vs The State of A.P

Kareedula Vijayalakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunisetti Appa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Arunodaya School of Nursing Vs State of Andhra Pradesh