Allowed

Salivahana Sangam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2022WP/21337/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the 3rd respondent failed to obey previous orders. The order set aside the impugned proceedings and directed reconsideration in accordance with the cited earlier judgments.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.660/1996-A dated 02.07.2015 and directed them to reconsider the issue afresh within 4 weeks.

Salivahana Sangam, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.21337 of 2015

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

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

¶4

“…. to issue Writ Order or Direction, declaring the Orders passed by the 3^rd Respondent vide Proceedings Rc.No.660/1996A dated 02.07.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, colourable, exercise of power, non-application and contrary to the orders passed by this Honble Court in WP.Nos 6120/1997 and 22345/2010 and set side the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.52/B of Purushothapatnam Village, Chilakaluripeta Mandal Guntur District and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶5

….”

¶6

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions of the urged in the Writ Petition.

¶7

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the impugned Order.

¶8

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to look into the earlier Orders passed by this court, in W.P.No.6120 of 1997 dated 17.03.2006 and W.P.No.22345 of 2010 dated 02-04-2014.

¶9

¶10

The operative portion of the Order passed by this Court in

¶11

W.P.No.6120 of 1997 dated 17-03-2006, which is as follows:

¶12

‘The Writ Petition is allowed and the assignment of house sites in favour of respondents 3 to 15 is set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 shall be entitled to proceed against the land in question, only after issuing notice and passing reasoned orders’.

¶13

The operative portion of the Order passed by this Court in

¶14

W.P.No.22345 of 2010 dated 02-04-2014, which is as follows:

¶15

‘Having regard to the limited submission and without expressing any view on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 14, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 3^rd respondent for disposal, as directed by the court. To ensure that not only justice is done, but seen to have been done, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the 3^rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry into the grievance of the petitioner/its members and pass speaking order by adverting to the record available in this behalf from the earliest point of time’.

¶16

Thereafter, as per the above orders, the 3^rd respondent

¶17

issued notice to the petitioner on 20.04.2015 and thereafter

¶18

passed the impugned order, which is as follows:

¶19

‘ All the above circumstances are clearly construed that the 14 assignees granted house site pattas in survey No.52/B got permission from the Municipal authorities fro construction of houses and they are also paying the house taxes, as fixed by the authorities and moreover no patta has been granted to the present Writ Petitioner and they have failed to produce the documentary evidence which discloses that they are having title over the schedule property. On the other hand, the assignees have produced the copy of house site pattas, issued by the authorities concerned along with tax receipts, which discloses that they are having title over the schedule property.

¶20

¶21

Therefore, the 14 assignees granted house site pattas in a total extent of Ac.0.50 cents located in Survey No.52/B of Purushothapatnam village are hereby permitted to availa the possession and enjoyment of the patta granted by duly following the terms and conditions of the house site patta granted. If any violations of terms and conditions of the house site patta grant noticed, the schedule extent of land will be resumed in favour of Government as per Rules in vogue, without assigning any reasons.’

¶22

Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶23

As seen from above impugned proceedings, it is clear that the Respondents No.2 and 3 failed to obey the orders passed by this court and as such, it is clear that the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent are admittedly contrary to the orders passed by this court in the W.P.Nos. 6120/1997 and 22345/2010.

¶24

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings of the Tahsildhar, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District/3^rd respondent vide Rc.No.660/1996-A, dated 02.07.2015 and further directed to reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with directions passed by this court in W.P.No. 6120/1997 and as well as in W.P.No.22345/2010, within a period of four(04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

¶26

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in

¶27

this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶28

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 16.11.2022 AVTP

¶29

¶30

174

¶31

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.21337 of 2015

¶33

Date : 16.11.2022

¶34

AVTP

Salivahana Sangam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salivahana Sangam, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

B.Thimmaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

S. Parvez Saheb, Chittoor Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Ot

Sanke Pullaiah, Vs Chunchu Narayanamma