Disposed

Sunchulada Subhadra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2021WP/3604/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Scheduled Tribe woman to challenge the respondents' attempt to dispossess her of a house site without issuing notice. The court held that if dispossession is intended, the official respondents must follow due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directing the official respondents to follow due process of law if they want to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

Sunchulada Subhadra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.3604 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from her house site admeasuring an extent of 0.03 cents in Sy.No.52 of Addateegala Village and Mandal, East Godavari District without issuing any notice as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that she is a Scheduled Tribe woman and purchased the subject house site; thereafter, possession certificate was also issued by the Tahsildar vide Ref.(B)/2006, dated 15.07.2006; the said certificate is still in force and it is not cancelled by any authority; while so, at the instance of the 4^th respondent who is the mother of local MLA, official respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner; petitioner also filed O.S.No.2 of 2013 before the Mobile Court at Rampachodavaram and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn without the notice of the petitioner; hence the Writ Petition.

¶6

This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 06.02.2018, passed an interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject house site. It was also made clear that the said order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law.

¶7

¶8

As seen from the copy of the possession certificate, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land; along with the Writ Petition, copy of the house tax receipt was also filed, but it does not contain the house number.

¶9

Even though notice was served on the 4^th respondent, there is no representation whatsoever on her behalf.

¶10

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to follow due process of law, if they want to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. No costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶13

Date: 10.11.2021 TM

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.3604 OF 2018

¶17

Date: 10.11.2021

¶18

Sunchulada Subhadra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunchulada Subhadra 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

Tammineedi Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Masjid E Salfia(Ahle Hadess)and Madaresa Management Committee Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Nanda Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Syam Prasad Vs State of Ap

N. Syam Prasad Vs State of Ap

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Chillies, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh