Disposed

P. Rama Chandra Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2021WP/12980/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding land possession and alleged demolition of foundations, the court directed the respondent temple to consider the petitioner's representation and clarify any claim or objection regarding construction.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 3rd respondent-temple to consider the petitioner's representation within three weeks and clarify any claim or objection regarding construction on the land.

P. Rama Chandra Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.12980 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner claims ownership and possession of Ac.0.06 cents of land equivalent to 290 Sq.yds of Chimalapalli Village, Pendurti Manda, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner is said to have purchased this land in the year 2017 under a Registered Deed of Sale bearing Document No.2266/2017.

¶5

The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition on the ground that on 26.02.2021 persons claiming to represent the 3^rd respondent had demolished the foundations that had been laid by the petitioner, for constructing a house, in the said land. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had approached the 3^rd respondent-temple and had given a representation, on 03.03.2021, to permit the petitioner to continue the construction of house, the 3^rd respondent-temple has not considered his request.

¶6

Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent submits that the 3^rd respondent-temple has a claim over the land and was objecting to the construction of a house in the said land.

¶7

In any view of the matter, it would be necessary for the petitioner to be informed whether the 3^rd respondent-temple has any objection to any such construction or whether the 3^rd respondent-temple does not have any objection to the said

¶8

RRR,J W.P.No.12980 of 2021

¶9

¶10

construction. This would enable the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent-temple to set forth their claims over the property, if any.

¶11

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent-temple to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2021 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and pass orders clarifying whether the 3^rd respondent-temple has any claim over the property or whether the 3^rd respondenttemple has no objection for the construction of a house by the petitioner in the said land. Needless to say, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the event of adverse claims by the 3^rd respondent-temple. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶14

09^th July, 2021 RJS

¶15

RRR,J 3 W.P.No.12980 of 2021

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶17

W.P.No.12980 of 2021

¶18

09^th July, 2021

¶19

RJS

P. Rama Chandra Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Rama Chandra Rao 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

Ajmira Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of A.P.

G Perumal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Suryadevara Rama Krishna, Vs The State of andhra pradesh

M/s Sovereign Agra Tech Refinery P.Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurram Satyanarayana Murthy Vs State of Ap

Y.V.H.S.R.S.S. Narasimha Rao, Vs J Padmaja