Allowed

Gowni Ananda Reddy v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2022WP/2376/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order restoring land to legal heirs. The Court found the order illegal due to violation of natural justice and lack of notice to the petitioner in possession under the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed not to dispossess petitioner from land except by following due process of law.

Gowni Ananda Reddy Vs The State of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.2376 of 2015

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent D.Dis.No.10733/2010/E4 dated 09.01.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, without following Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules1977, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.49/2 situated at Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal & district and to pass such other order or orders…”

¶7

While admitting the writ petition on 06.02.2015, this Court granted interim order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents out of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy. No.49/2 situated at Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal and District till pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶8

In view of the said interim order, it appears that the petitioner is in continuous possession of the subject land.

¶9

When the matter came up for hearing, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order in D.Dis.No.10733/2010/E4, dated 09.01.2014, is passed by the 2^nd

¶10

¶11

respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner though the petitioner have been in possession since 2001. Thereafter, only when the revision petition was filed by the 6^th respondent, the 2^nd respondent without giving any notice issued the impugned orders directing to restore the land in an extent of Ac.1.35 cents (including the subject land claimed by the petitioner i.e., Ac.0.10 cents) in Sy. No.49-2 of Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapur Mandal, to the legal heirs of the original assignee i.e. Sri Gundlamadugu Peddaiah S/o Narappa of Ananthapuram as per clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4(1) of POT Act 9/97.

¶12

On perusal of the material available on record, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court on 06.02.2015, it appears that the petitioner herein is not made party in the Revision Petition filed by the 6^th respondent herein before the 2^nd respondent herein-Joint Collector. It is also evident that the 2^nd respondent-Joint Collector without issuing any notice to petitioner as required under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977, passed impugned order which is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. This Court feels it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in D.Dis.No.10733/2010/E4, dated 09.01.2014, and directing the respondents not to dispossess of the

¶13

¶14

petitioner from his land, if at all he is in possession as on today, except

¶15

by following the due process of law.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order

¶17

as to costs.

¶18

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

¶19

closed.

¶20

_________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 09.11.2022.

ASH

110

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶26

W.P. No.2376 of 2015

¶27

Date: 09.11.2022

¶28

ASH

Gowni Ananda Reddy v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowni Ananda Reddy v. The State of A.P.

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

V. Rajani Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary

Eerakkagari Chinnababu S/o E. Bavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasari Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Taanamgari Govindaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

Ganta Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh