Dismissed

B Eswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Aug 2021WP/16207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the State Government's action under the "Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu" scheme, claiming illegal dispossession without notice. The court held that since petitioners failed to prove continued physical possession and service of notice could not be insisted upon at this stage, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus seeking direction not to interfere with entry into house sites was denied; petition dismissed with liberty to challenge resumption order.

B Eswara Rao Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.16207 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶5

India, claiming the following relief:

¶6

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioners from entering into their respective house sites vide plot numbers such as (1)Plot No.217 in Sy.No.180/ 1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Bandaru Eswara Rao, (2)Plot No.194 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Yalagala Sheshaiah (3) Plot No.173 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Derangala Siva Sankar (4) Plot No.174 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Shaik Chinna Nagur Valli (5) Plot No.186 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Tummalapalli Koteswaramma (6) Plot No.194 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of J. Veeranjeyneyulu (7) Plot No. 213 in Sy.No.80/1 in an extent of Ac.0- 03 cents in the name of Chinni Irama Murthy (8) Plot No.188 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Murugula Nagaraju (9) Plot No.189 and 195 in Sy.No180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Patan Amjad Khan (10) Plot No.217 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Kumba Venkateswarlu (11) Plot No. 219 in Sy.No.180/1 in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the name of Thontala Picchi Reddy situated in Veerapaneni Nagar Vittamraju Palle Village Vinukonda mandal Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners entering into their respective house sites and direct the respondents not to obstruct the petitioners in reconstructing their respective houses which were illegally demolished by the respondents authorities and further directing the respondents to grant and allocate houses to the petitioners under the YSR Houses for all PEDALANDARIKI ELLU in accordance with law”

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the purchasers of the vacant site referred above from the said pattadars, constructed thatched houses and residing therein. Thus, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective site and houses.

¶8

While so, with a view to distribute land to the landless poor, the State Government announced a scheme „Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu‟, thereby, the revenue authorities are meddling with the house sites of the petitioners without following due process of law and without issuing notice and trying to dispossess them. Hence, the

¶9

MSM,J WP_16207_2021

¶10

¶11

present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and violaltive of Articles, 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not produce copy of the resumption order in Rc.No.33/2020/A dated 27.01.2020 passed by the Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District to this Court, however, orally submitted that, resumption order in Rc.No.33/2020/A dated 27.01.2020 was passed by the Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District for violation of the terms and conditions of the patta and thereby, the respondents took possession of the property under panchanama and distributed pattas to third parties on 04.01.2021. Therefore, as on date, the question of petitioners continuing in possession is doubtful, but, still, learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that, no physical possession was taken from the petitioners and that, no notice was served on these petitioners, while passing resumption orders.

¶13

Undoubtedly, resumption order in Rc.No.33/2020/A dated 27.01.2020 is passed by the fifth respondent/Tahsildar and allegedly re-assigned the property on granting pattas in favour of third parties on 04.01.2021, after taking physical possession of the property from these petitioners for violation of the terms and conditions of patta granted by the original assignee.

¶14

The contention of the petitioners that, no physical possession of the property was taken by the respondents cannot be decided at this stage in this writ petition, as the petitioners did not produce any other material to establish as on date that they are in possession of the property. More so, when the resumption order was passed, the

¶15

MSM,J WP_16207_2021

¶16

¶17

respondents are entitled to take possession. So far as service of the notice to the petitioners is concerned, this Court cannot insist the respondents to produce proof of service of notice before passing resumption order. If, the resumption order is challenged, the Court can insist the respondents to furnish copy of proof of service. But, in the present proceedings, such contention cannot be accepted and on that ground, this Court cannot issue a direction as claimed by the writ petitioners.

¶18

Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, a copy of the resumption order is not served on these petitioners. It is not known whether copy of the order was served on the petitioners by the Tahsildar or not. However, it is appropriate to direct the Respondent No.5/Tahsildar to serve copy of resumption order on the watsapp number of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Y. Koteswara Rao and petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same, if advised.

¶19

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no directions need be issued, as claimed by these petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

In the result, writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the resumption order in Rc.No.33/2020/A dated 27.01.2020, if advised.

¶21

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

¶22

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

Date:10.08.2021 SP

B Eswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Eswara Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. S.V. Rukminamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vangala Seetharami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chiranjeevi Satya Varma Vs Adnan Nayeem Asmi

Smt. B. Jayasudha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Timmisetti Subrahmanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Venkata Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh