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

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2022WP/14193/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the interference by respondents with the construction of an agriculture mulberry shed on land where petitioners claimed ownership. The Court examined land ownership records and dismissed respondent claims of government jurisdiction. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing authorities not to interfere without due process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Eerakkagari Chinnababu S/o E… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.14193 of 2015

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction of the Agriculture Mulberry Shed at the petitioners lands admeasuring Ac.0.17 cents in Survey No.542-1A situated at K.Locherla Village, Kothacheruvu Mandal, Anaantapur District, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to law and being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction of the Agriculture Mulberry Shed at the petitioners above lands without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case …”

¶6

The claim of the petitioners is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.17 cents in survey No.542-1A situated at K.Locherla Village, Kothacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed vide document No.2031/2014 dated 02.12.2014 through one Chennamma and Parvathamma wives of Vemuleti Chenna Krishna Reddy and his son Rajasekhar Reddy and Venkata Ramana Reddy. When the petitioners intend to construct a Mulberry shed in his lands, at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5, when the respondents

¶7

¶8

2 and 3 interfered with the peaceful construction of the shed, in their private land, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

¶9

When the matter came up for admission, this Court passed an Interim Order on 07.05.2015 as follows:

¶10

„Notice before admission to respondents 4 and 5.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of Ac.0.17 cents of land in Survey No.542-1A, situated at K.Locherla village, Kothacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapur District, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 2^nd December, 2014, and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, but the official respondents 2 and 3 are trying to interfere with the construction of agriculture mulberry shed being taken up by the petitioners in the said land and aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶13

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the subject matter of the land shall be maintained by the parties till 15.06.2015.

¶14

List the matter on 15.06.2015 in the motion list.”

¶15

The 2^nd respondent filed counter contending that the

¶16

schedule property in survey No.542-1A in an extent of Ac.1.23 classified as Government Dry and patta land as per RSR and the said land is situated within the foreshore area of K.Locherla Tank. When the petitioners intended to construct a shed in the said land by filling the lower level area, which will cause obstruction for the storage of water in K.Locherla Tank and when the petitioners tried to fill the lower level area of the land, on 03.05.2015 objections were received from the public

¶17

¶18

requesting not to allow the petitioner to fill the low level area of the tank.

¶19

When the matter came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners irritated contentions of the Writ Petition.

¶20

But, however, on perusal of the records filed by the petitioners i.e., Village Account No.3, it would appear that one E.Chinna Babu Babaiah and E.Ramachandra Babaiah are shown as owners of Survey No.542/1 and as well as the land in an extent of Ac.1.23 cents. As such, the contention of the respondents that the subject lands are Government lands, cannot be accepted.

¶21

In view of the same, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land, without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶23

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

Date : 08.11.2022 AVTP

¶25

¶26

363

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.14193 of 2015

¶29

Date : 08.11.2022

¶30

AVTP

¶31

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Sirapanasetti Maha Lakshmi,and 3 Vs Tahsildar,Vps Dist,and 2

Pothani Lakshmaiah, S/o. P.Ramaiah, Vs The Tahsildar

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

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.G. Eeranna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary