Dismissed

P. Subhashini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2022WP/10142/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing two writ petitions challenging the permission granted for building construction on agricultural land. The court held the petitions lacked merit due to the petitioners' failure to adduce evidence proving land status or reply to the respondent's counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petitions were dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending in the Writ Petitions stood closed.

P. Subhashini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION Nos.13234 and 10142 of 2021

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Since the point involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of both the parties they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶4

These writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the respondents in permitting to make illegal constructions in the agricultural land in Sy.No.364/10 of Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, in spite of the representation made by the petitioners dated 31.03.2021, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have agricultural lands in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, and they are purely dependent on the income derived from the said agricultural lands. While so, respondent Nos.6 and 7 without any permission or approved plans from the authorities concerned are constructing buildings in the agricultural lands. The learned counsel contends that though the petitioners submitted representations dated 31.03.2021 to the respondents about the illegal constructions, no action is taken by them so far.

¶6

Per contra , learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the 5^th respondent Grampanchayat issued permission to respondent Nos.6 and 7 for construction of buildings in the year 2018 itself and with false and frivolous allegations, the petitioners filed the

¶7

¶8

present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 contends that the 7^th respondent is the owner of land of an extent of Acs.4.29 cents situated in Sy.Nos.364/2 to 16, 363/8/10 of Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2014 and the 7^th respondent applied for building permission to the 5^th respondent and after obtaining permission, he constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The learned counsel further contends that the 7^th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit narrating all the facts, but the petitioners did not file any reply thereto and also did not choose to file any material in support of their case. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that except stating that the petitioners are having agricultural lands in Sy.No.364/10 of Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, vide DKT pattas, they did not file any iota of evidence along with the writ petitions to show that the said land is DKT patta land. Further, the petitioners did not file any reply to the counter affidavit of the 7^th respondent denying the contentions made therein. There are no merits in the writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed.

¶11

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to

¶13

costs.

¶14

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the

¶15

Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶17

25^th July, 2022 cbs

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶20

Writ Petition Nos.13234 and 10142 of 2021

¶21

25^th July, 2022

¶22

cbs

P. Subhashini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Subhashini 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

Thota Rama Chandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddisetty Venkata Indravardhan Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lokanadham Rudrakoti, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Rajasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Puchalapalli Bhakthavala Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Srinivasa Rao Vs The District Collector