Disposed

Macherla Chennamma, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Pri. Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Nov 2022WP/2003/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought a declaration against interference with land possession and a mandate to follow due process. The court, noting that the respondent authorities agreed to follow due process, disposed of the petition by issuing a direction not to interfere with possession without due process.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the schedule land without following the due process of law.

Macherla Chennamma, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2003 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Survey No.144 situated in Y. Kothapalle H/o.Yerragondapalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the said respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the said land without following the due process of law and pass such other order …”

¶6

When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has passed an Interim Order on 14.02.2015, which is as

¶7

follows:

¶8

„the learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to take out personal notices to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 by RPAD and file proof of service.

¶9

It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the instance of the official respondents, the unofficial respondents are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question.

¶10

In the circumstances, there shall be interim direction that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall not interfere with the petitioner‟s possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Survey No.144 situated in Y.Kothapalle H/o. Yerragondapalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without following the due process of law‟ .

¶11

¶12

The petitioner’s claim is only to follow the due process of law, in case the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his land.

¶13

The respondent No.4 filed their counter, disputing the claim made by the petitioner and contended that the original assignee for the land of Ac.0.62 cents in Survey No.144 situated in Y.Kothapalli Village H/o.Yerragondapalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam Disrict is Sri Polu Sundara Rao(5^th respondent herein) which was assigned by the then Tahsildar in R.Dis.150/1388/1978 and was also issued Pattadar Pass Book under Khatha No.199. While so, the then Tahsildar has again issued patta to the petitioner vide R.Dis.No.270/05 Fasli 1414, dated 20.02.2005 without cancellation of the patta and Pattadar pass Book issued to the original assignee during the year, 1978, by mistake. Action however being taken as per law to cancel the assignment Patta and Pattadar Pass Books granted erroneously. In the above circumstances, the contention of the Petitioner that she is the assignee of the land having got the assignment in 2005 is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶14

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition

¶15

¶16

and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that respondent-authorities will follow due process of law.

¶17

Recording the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, no further adjudication is required in this matter. Hence, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule land in an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in survey Number.144 situated in Y.Kothapallie, H/o.Yerragondapalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, except by following due process in accordance with law.

¶18

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

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

¶20

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶21

Date : 03.11.2022 AVTP

¶22

¶23

140

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.2003 of 2015

¶26

Date : 03.11.2022

¶27

AVTP

¶28

¶29

Macherla Chennamma, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Pri. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Macherla Chennamma, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Pri. Secretary

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

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah Vs the State of Ap

A.Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Devineni Gopi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O

K.Kesavaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Murari Venkateswara Rao Vs The 5tate of Andhra Pradesh

Kasthuri Manayam, Chittoor Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.