Disposed

Ramayanam Venkata Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2022WP/21340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding land possession, the High Court directed the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner without providing an opportunity of hearing and verifying documents, while clarifying that construction without building permission remains impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 5th respondent not to dispossess petitioner without opportunity of hearing and verification; construction without building permission not permissible.

Ramayanam Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21340 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner claims possession of 60 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.289/2 of Veeravaram Village, adjacent to Tuni Municipality on the basis of longstanding dispossession of his father and himself. The petitioner also relies upon certain proceedings that are said to have been given by the Tahsildar, Tuni Mandal.

¶4

The petitioner claims that the father of the petitioner had initially constructed a thatched hut over an extent of 60 sq. yards of land and after his demise the petitioner and his brother had inherited the same. He would further submit that as the thatched hut had become dilapidated, he had sought reconstruction of the thatched hut, at which time the officials of the 5^th respondent sought to dispossess the petitioner from the said property without following any due procedure as established by law.

¶5

Sri. T. Lakshmi Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rights of the petitioner are being taken away by the 5^th respondent without giving him an opportunity and without considering the papers filed by the petitioner.

¶6

Sri. M. Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent, on instructions, submits that about 94 cents of land in Sy.No.289/2, including the land being

¶7

¶8

claimed by the petitioner is owned by the municipality and the petitioner has recently come into possession of the property and is seeking to construct the building without any building permission. He submits that on account of these activities of the petitioner, that 5^th respondent sought to protect its property. He would further submit that the petitioner, cannot take up construction of any structure without obtaining building permission.

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

The complaint of the petitioner is essentially that he has not been given an opportunity to place his papers before the 5^th respondent and that 5^th respondent is acting without following due procedure. On the other hand, the 5^th respondent has taken the stand that the property belongs to the 5^th respondent and the petitioner cannot encroach into the land and start constructing the structures without building permissions.

¶11

This Court, without going into the question of when the petitioner had come into possession of the land, would have to hold that the petitioner appears to be in possession of the land in question as the construction of the 5^th respondent appears to be admitting the possession of the petitioner. However, it is also clear that the petitioner is constructing a new structure without obtaining building permission from the municipality and the same is not permissible.

¶12

¶13

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land admeasuring of 60 sq. yards in Sy.No.298/2 without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without verifying the documents being relied upon by the petitioner to claim long standing possession and proprietary rights over the said land. For this purpose, the 5^th respondent shall take up such steps as are permissible under law for any action against the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As far as the construction of the building, by the petitioner over the disputed land is concerned, the same would not be permissible unless an appropriate building permission is obtained by the petitioner. It would be open to the 5^th respondent to ensure that the petitioner does not make any construction without obtaining a building permission. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

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

¶15

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶16

20.07.2022 RKS

¶17

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.21340 of 2022

¶20

RKS

¶21

20.07.2022

Ramayanam Venkata Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramayanam Venkata Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayacut Dar Committee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E. Sujatha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannuru Anil Kumar Reddy Vs Union of India

Vuyyuru Borra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Subhas Chandra Bose at Bose, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Likhil Kumar Vs M/s.Vystar Enbterprises