Allowed

Vavilla Parvathamma, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2022WP/2167/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders of the Joint Collector restoring land to the 6th respondent despite petitioner's prior allotment under CJFS Scheme. Court held the orders were passed without notice to the petitioner, violating natural justice, and set them aside. Matter remitted for fresh proceedings with notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2011 set aside; matter remitted for notice to petitioner and passing appropriate orders.

Vavilla Parvathamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.2167 of 2014

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, dated 26.07.2011 and 11.11.2011, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.61 cents situated in R.S.No.43/2 of Kothapatnam Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District was allotted in favour of the petitioner’s husband, Mr.Vavilla China Venkatesu, S/o.Pitchaiah, under Co-operative Joint Forming Society (CJFS) Scheme; since the date of allotment, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the name of the petitioner’s husband was also recorded in Form-1 (Record of Rights) register and also in 10(1) register; petitioner’s husband died 20 years back and after his death, petitioner being a legal heir is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and her name was entered in 10(1) register 1410 fasli and the petitioner is cultivating the said land; while so, the 6^th respondent taking advantage of similarity of his name with the name of the petitioner’s husband, submitted a representation to the 3^rd respondent on 29.12.2010, alleging that he was granted patta for the subject land and that one Mr.Vavili Venkateswarlu (who is the grandson of the petitioner) of the same village have forcibly entered into the said land and formed prawn ponds without any permission and requested to

¶5

¶6

restore the land to him; on 26.04.2013, the 6^th respondent herein filed W.P.No.12431 of 2011, alleging non-consideration of his representation and allowing the 4^th respondent therein (who is the grandson of the petitioner) to convert the agricultural land into aqua ponds; an interim direction was passed on 27.04.2011, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation sent by the 6^th respondent, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein; basing on the representation, the 2^nd respondent passed an order on 26.07.2011, stating that the land was originally allotted to the 6^th respondent under CJFS Scheme, but the same was encroached by the grandson of the petitioner by name Mr.Vavilla Venkateswarlu and converted the land into prawn ponds and the said order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and basing on the said order, the 3^rd respondent directed the 5^th respondent to initiate action for the eviction of the encroachers from the subject land; when the 5^th respondent informed the petitioner that they have to vacate the said land as per the order passed by the 3^rd respondent on 26.07.2011, petitioner’s grandson submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 17.09.2011, stating that the original CJFS lessee was Mr.Vavilla China Venkatesu, who is the grandfather and not the 6^th respondent and requested to issue a revised order; after conducting enquiry, the 2^nd respondent passed an order on 11.11.2011, observing that the 6^th respondent has no right

¶7

¶8

over the subject land and Mr.Vavilla China Venkatesu, was the original lessee and the petitioner’s grandson is utilizing the said land for prawn culture, without any permission and the same amounts to violation of condition and ordered to resume the said land to the Government and further directed the 4^th respondent to take possession of the land; the 6^th respondent filed W.P.No.34168 of 2013, questioning the action of the 3^rd respondent in not taking action to evict the encroachers on the subject land and not giving effect to the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent on 26.07.2011 and the said writ petition was filed suppressing the order passed by the 3^rd respondent on 11.11.2011; the said writ petition was disposed of, observing that the 6^th respondent is permitted to approach the 3^rd respondent for delivery of vacant possession of the subject land; but the 6^th respondent does not have any right over the subject land, as seen from the order passed by the 3^rd respondent on 11.11.2011 and basing on the order passed in W.P.No.34168 of 2013 on 28.11.2013, the 6^th respondent is trying to occupy the subject land; since the allotted land under CJFS Scheme was low laying land, all the beneficiaries converted the said land into prawn ponds and having no other alternative, the petitioner also converted the subject land into prawn pond and the subject land is bounded by prawn ponds on all sides and there is no possibility to cultivate the same and the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned order, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and the issue before the 3^rd

¶9

¶10

respondent is whether the 6^th respondent has any right over the subject land; but the 3^rd respondent exceeded the scope of enquiry and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, passed the impugned order and the 6^th respondent is making efforts to evict the petitioner from the subject land. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶11

No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. But Mr.P.Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel represented the 6^th respondent.

¶12

As seen from the proceedings of Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District-3^rd respondent herein, dated 11.11.2011, the grandson of the petitioner, Mr.Vavilla Venkateswarlu is utilizing the CJFS Scheme land for prawn culture, without obtaining any permission and by violating the lease condition. It is also categorically stated that the 6^th respondent is ineligible to enter into the subject land and it was directed to be resumed to the Government. No appeal is filed by the 6^th respondent, challenging the proceedings dated 11.11.2011 and the said order has become final, so far as 6^th respondent is concerned.

¶13

In the impugned proceedings, even though, it is stated that the petitioner has violated the lease condition, it is not specifically stated as to which condition is violated by the petitioner and admittedly the said order was passed without giving any notice to the petitioner, who is the wife of the original lessee.

¶14

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned proceedings, dated 11.11.2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶16

Hence, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

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

¶18

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶19

Date:03.02.2022 VSL

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.2167 of 2014

¶23

dated: 03.02.2022

¶24

VSL

¶25

Vavilla Parvathamma, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vavilla Parvathamma, v. The Government 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

Pesangi Yesu, Vs The District Collector

Boina Ramanjaneyulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dareddy Pedda Ramireddy, Prakasam Dist and Another Vs Tahsildar, Karimnagar Dist and 2 Ot

Kaikaram Fisherman Co. operative Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppalapati Buchi Venkata Pathi Raju, Vizianagaram and 3 Others Vs Secy, Ah, Dd and Fisheries (Fish) Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

Pandraju Lakshmana Rao, Vs The Collector-cum- Chairman