Disposed

Dasari Chalapathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2022WP/10891/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus directive not to interfere with petitioners' agricultural land possession. Relying on interim findings of possession and the Government Pleader's submission on due process, the Court directed authorities not to interfere with possession except through due legal process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of subject lands except by following the due process of law.

Dasari Chalapathi Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10891 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…to issue a writ order or direction particularly Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands situated in Vathalur Village, Pullampet Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District which are assigned to them in 1408 Fasli, particulars of which are-(1) the 1^st petitioner was assigned land in DKT No 150/99 in Sy.No.1042/2 extent Ac.1-90 cents dated 26.06.1999 (2) the 2^nd petitioner was assigned land in DKT No.149/99 in Sy. No.1042/1 extent Ac.1-90 cents dated 26.06.1999 and to issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, holding that the interference of respondents and the failure to issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds is arbitrary and illegal and to pass such other order or orders…”

¶6

On 17.04.2015, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶7

“ …..In view of the fact that the respondents themselves admit that the petitioners are in possession and cultivating the land, even assuming that they are in possession basing on the fake and fabricated documents, there shall be direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land in question without following due process of law.”

¶8

In view of the said interim order, it appears that the petitioners have been in continuous possession of the subject lands.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that if at all the respondents intend to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject lands of the petitioners, they will follow the due process of law.

¶10

In view of the interim order granted by this Court, instead of going into the merits of the case, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject lands of the petitioners as mentioned above, if at all they are in possession of the subject lands, except by following the due process of law.

¶11

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 09.11.2022.

ASH

273

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶18

W.P. No.10891 of 2015

¶19

Date:09.11.2022

¶20

ASH

Dasari Chalapathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Chalapathi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Rajani Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary

Eerakkagari Chinnababu S/o E. Bavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowni Ananda Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Taanamgari Govindaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

Ganta Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh