The court disposed of a writ petition challenging dispossession from government land in a scheduled area. It directed official respondents to follow due process of law before evicting the petitioner.
Direction to official respondents to follow due process of law if they want to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.3802 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed ‘to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring an extent of Ac.7.00 cents in Sy.No.111 situated in Rama Gopalapuram Village, Yatapaka Mandal, East Godavari District without issuing any notice or initiating any proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as illegal and arbitrary’.
The case of the petitioner is that the subject land is in possession of the family members of the petitioner since more than 60 years and there is Eucalyptus plantation in the subject land; the petitioner is a non-tribe and the subject land is situated in the scheduled area in East Godavari District; pursuant to the application made by the petitioner on 16.08.2017, the 2nd respondent issued endorsement dated 23.11.2017 stating that the petitioner and his family members are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land and that the same is classified as Government land; the adangal pahanies also show that the family members of the petitioner are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land; under the influence of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are tribals, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject property. Hence, the Writ Petition.
2
Even though notice was served on unofficial Respondent Nos.4 and 5, there is no representation whatsoever on their behalf.
Counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.2 stating inter-alia that the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent requesting to issue pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour; the Tahsildar enquired into the matter and issued an endorsement to the petitioner to obtain Settlement patta from competent authority under Reg.II of 1970; the petitioner is a non-tribal and he is an encroacher of the Government land and prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that if they want to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, they will follow due process of law.
An endorsement made by the Tahsildar dated 23.11.2017 shows that the subject land was in possession of the petitioner and the copy of the pahani for the year 2010-11 also show the name of the petitioner’s father as occupant in respect of the subject land.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the 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 land. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J
Date: 10.11.2021 TM
3
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.3802 OF 2018
Date: 10.11.2021
TM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents seeking to dispossess the petitioner from government land in a scheduled area without issuing notice or initiating proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Tra
The procedure to be followed if the official respondents wish to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No.2
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
