Petitioner challenged dispossession of land in scheduled area without notice. Court found Tahsildar endorsement showed continuous possession. Writ petition dismissed directing officials to follow due process of law for dispossession.
Directed official respondents to follow due process of law if they wish to dispossess petitioner from 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.3810 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.2.31 cents in Sy.No.33 situated in Chinna Nallakunta Village, Yetapaka 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 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 of the subject land; under the influence of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are tribals, Respondent
2
Nos.2 and 3 are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject property; hence, the Writ Petition.
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; it is also stated that the petitioner is a non-tribal, 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 Adangal/Pahani also show the name of petitioner’s grand father as occupant.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to follow due process
3
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
4
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.3810 OF 2018
Date: 10.11.2021
TM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dispossession of the petitioner from government land without notice is illegal.
Whether the petitioner qualifies as an encroacher despite long possession.
What procedural safeguards must be followed for dispossession.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner
State Through Collector, Collector of East Godavari District
Deputy Tahsildar, Chinna Nallakunta Village
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
