Allowed

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy v. The State of Ap.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022WP/14306/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, issued to vacate house plots. The Court quashed the notice, finding it illegal as the petitioner was the absolute owner with valid title.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was set aside; respondent authorities directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession of Plot Nos. 5 and 6 at Venkannapalem.

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The State of Ap. — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.14306 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notice issue d by the 3^rd respondent under Section 6 of the Act 3 of 1905 in Rc.B.37/2015, dated 02.05.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same.”

¶6

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the land admeasuring Ac.7.60 cents situated in Survey No.1236 at Venkannapalem was divided into house plots and allotted the same to eligible persons. Land an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Plot No.5 was allotted to one Chillakuru Annapurnamma and Plot No.6 was allotted to one Kaku Krishnavenamma on 12.08.1986. Both the allottees, who are mother and grandmother of the petitioner, bequeathed their plots to the petitioner by executing a registered settlement deed bearing document No.586/2015 dated 10.03.2015. The petitioner constructed a house in Plot

VS, J

W.P.No.14306 of 2015

Nos.5 and 6 and paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat and he also got electricity service connection. While so, the 3^rd respondent issued notice under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in Rc.B.37/2015, dated 02.05.2015 directing the petitioner to vacate the land within two days. The said notice was served on 04.05.2015.

¶11

This Court, on 07.05.2015, granted the interim directions as under:

¶12

“Aggrieved by the notice dated 02.05.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, Kota Mandal, Nellore District, under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

Post after 8 weeks in the motion list.

¶15

Since it is stated that there is immediate threat of dispossession, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till then.”

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶17

Having gone through the material on record, prima facie, it appears that house site pattas were granted in favour of Chillakuru Annapurnamma and Kaku

VS, J

W.P.No.14306 of 2015

Krishnavenamma, who are grandmother and mother of the petitioner and the issuance of such house site pattas was clearly established from the material on record. After their demise, the petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the house plots. It also appears that the petitioner is regularly paying house tax to the Gram Panchayat and also electricity charges. Since the ownership of the petitioner over the subject plots is clearly established from the material on record, the question of encroaching the plots by the petitioner, as stated by the respondents, does not arise, and as such, the issuance of notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without any basis, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and hence, the said notice is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the notice in Rc.B.37/2015, dated 02.05.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act,

VS, J

W.P.No.14306 of 2015

1905, is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over Plot Nos.5 and 6 situated at Venkannapalem, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without following due process of law, till the patta granted are subsisting. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

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

¶28

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶29

Date: 15.11.2022

¶30

Ksn

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy v. The State of Ap.

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

Korsa Laxmi Vs The State of of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Goddu Sitamahalakshmi, Vs The Tahsildar

Ghanta Venkata Naga Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

B. Ramalingadu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh