Disposed

Thota Venkata Rao v. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Nov 2021WP/25084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition challenging threats to dispossess the petitioner from leased land, the Court held that while the petitioner is not an encroacher, a legal notice and opportunity for response is mandatory before eviction. The Court issued a stay on dispossession pending notice issuance.

What did the court decide?

Status quo on possession maintained; respondents directed to issue notice and give opportunity for explanation before deciding on dispossession.

Thota Venkata Rao Vs Greater Visakhapatnam… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.25084 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Alleged action of respondents 1 and 2 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the property bearing D.No.13-65/2, Pinamadaka, Aganampudi Rehabilitation Colony, Visakhapatnam, is the complaint of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

¶4

According to the petitioner, his wife is a R-card holder and no employment was provided either to the petitioner or to his wife, in terms of the policy/scheme of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. It is further stated that in view of the same, petitioner made a request to respondents 3 and 4 for allotment of land to establish a manufacturing unit for manufacture of cement poles, rings and other household cement items. It is further stated that considering the said request, the Special Officer, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, vide proceedings Rc. No.394/97/B, dated 26.07.1997, allotted an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of land on lease for a period of five years from the date of issuance of the said orders, on payment of Rs.600/- per annum, within the boundaries indicated in the said letter. Earlier, the petitioner’s wife filed Writ Petition No.21586 of 1998 before the composite High Court

¶5

¶6

for a direction to the Steel Plant authorities to provide the petitioner therein with facilities of employment and land. In the said Writ Petition instituted by the wife of the petitioner, in W.P.M.P. No.25874 of 1998, the composite High Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders of cancellation of the allotment dated 13.7.1998. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.10.2007, the composite High Court closed the said Writ Petition stating that in view of the interim orders granted earlier on 17.12.1998, no further orders were necessary. Now, in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition, it is stated that respondents 3 and 4 herein continued to receive annual rent from time to time and the petitioner paid annual rentals up to 2024. Precisely, the complaint of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation authorities, without any authority of law and without issuing any notice, are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

¶7

Today, when the matter is taken up, on instructions, it is submitted by Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that vide proceedings Rc.No.292/2009/B, dated 16.12.2015, the Steel Plant authorities handed over the

¶8

¶9

subject land to the petitioner and the subject property falls under green belt area. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that there is absolutely no material on record to show that after expiry of the initial lease period, there is extension of lease, as such, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for 3^rd respondent, on instructions, submits that the respondent-steel plant authorities did not allot the subject land to the petitioner, as such, the very continuation of the petitioner in possession of the subject property is unauthorized.

¶11

Possession of the petitioner herein and the manufacture of the items, referred to supra, are not in dispute. Obviously, grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is lack of notice by the respondentauthorities before resorting to the impugned action. It is a settled and well established principle of law that even an encroacher is entitled for a notice before evicting him/her, and as it is the specific case of the petitioner in the instant case that without complying with the said requirement, the respondent-authorities are contemplating to evict the petitioner from the subject land, this Court deems it

¶12

¶13

appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition, leaving it open for the respondent-authorities to issue notice and give opportunity to the petitioner herein for filing explanation/objections before taking any decision for dispossessing the petitioner herein from the subject property. Till a decision is taken, status quo as on today with regard to possession shall be maintained. It is made clear that if the petitioner herein does not respond to any such notice, he is not entitled for any benefit under this order.

¶14

No costs as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶15

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if

¶16

any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

01.11.2021 DRK

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.25084 OF 2021

¶22

01.11.2021

¶23

DRK

Thota Venkata Rao v. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Venkata Rao v. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

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

Vadluri Malathi Rajani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Obaiah alias Mariyadas Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Jagadeeswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Josh Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R Mariyamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

JalliSanjeeva Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh