Allowed

Naralasetti Tatarao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2021WP/21952/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a notice to vacate land issued under Rule 15 of the Agricultural Land Rules, which had been struck down by a Division Bench. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the notice as it relied on a non-existent law, while permitting the respondent to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 83 of the Endowment Act, 1987.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 29.09.2020 set aside. Liberty to 3rd respondent to initiate eviction action under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987.

Naralasetti Tatarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.21952 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

It is the case of the petitioner that he was in possession of Ac.0.12 cents of land in Sy.No.88/5 of Vompolu Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on account of the fact that the father of the petitioner had purchased the said land by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 26.10.1984. He submits that he received notice dated 29.09.2020, said to have been issued under Rule 15 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called the “Agricultural Land Rules”) by the 3^rd respondent calling upon him to vacate the said land as he was an encroacher and in unauthorised occupation of the land.

¶5

Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has now approached this Court.

¶6

Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice has been issued under Rule 15 (1) & (2) of the Agricultural Land Rules, which permit the 3^rd respondent to evict the petitioner even without approaching the Endowment Tribunal as required under Section 83 of the Endowment Act, 1987. She submits that these Rules have been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 04.07.2018 in W.P.No.34361 of 2016 and batch. She

¶7

RRR,J 2 W.P.No.21952 of 2020

¶8

submits that as the said Rules themselves are not on the statute book, no further action can be taken on the basis of the said notice and the said notice would have to be quashed.

¶9

The 3^rd respondent had filed a counter stating that the land had been handed over by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent on 19.11.2020, and as such, nothing survives in the writ petition.

¶10

A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, denying his signature on the “Bhoomi Appaginta Patram” that has been filed by the 3^rd respondent with the vacate petition. Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out to certain discrepancies in the document. The petitioner has also filed photographs along with the reply affidavit showing that he was in possession of the land, as late as, February, 2021.

¶11

Even though the proceedings of handing over of possession, dated 19.11.2020 have been filed by the 3^rd respondent, the said proceedings do not appear to be credible on account of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court on the very same day by way of the present writ petition. It would be hard to understand as to why the petitioner, who is said to have voluntarily handed over his land, would again approach this Court by travelling to Vijayawada during Covid-19 pandemic and file the present writ petition. The said document does not inspire confidence and cannot be the basis for any decision by this Court.

¶12

RRR,J 3 W.P.No.21952 of 2020

¶13

Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent would submit that a perusal of the notice would show that even though the notice is said to have been issued under Rule 15 (2) & (3) of the Rules, the said notice does not state that the petitioner would be evicted unilaterally. He would submit that this notice may be treated as a notice under Section 83 of the Endowments Act, and liberty be given to the 3^rd respondent to initiate action in accordance with Section 83 of the Endowment Act.

¶14

In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.07.2018 in W.P.No.34361 of 2016 and batch, the present writ petition is allowed setting aside the notice dated 29.09.2020 as it has been issued under a provision of Law, which is not in existence. However, the 3^rd respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate action, if he thought fit, to evict the petitioner by following the procedure established by law and in accordance with Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶17

07^th July, 2021 RJS

¶18

RRR,J 4 W.P.No.21952 of 2020

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

W.P.No.21952 of 2020

¶21

07^th July, 2021

¶22

RJS

Naralasetti Tatarao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naralasetti Tatarao 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Gudipati Swamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. K.Beeran Kutty, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudipati Sri Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vutukuri Rajarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Duggisetty Jaya Prada, Vs Sri K.V.N Chakradhar Babu

P Raghavendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh