Disposed

Gullala Atchutam, s/o. late Narayana Swamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2022WP/29677/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the respondents' interference with the petitioner's peaceful possession of land. The court disposed of the petition with a direction not to interfere without due process and consent of counsel.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession of land without following due process under law.

Gullala Atchutam, s/o. late Narayana Swamy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.29677 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, or any other appropriate Writ Direction or Order declaring the action of the respondents authorities in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of 300 square yards of land bearing D.No. 9- 7-185 in survey No.37, Sankar Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary without any authority of law and violative of Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of 300 square yards of land bearing Door No 9-7-185 in survey No.37, Sankar Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, without any direction from the competent court of law and pass such other further orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

¶6

When the matter came up for hearing, this Court passed

¶7

an Interim Order on 11.09.2015, which is as follows:

¶8

„Prima facie, it appears that in LGC.No.23/89, dated 02-01-1995, the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, held that the petitioner therein i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, has not made out any claim that the petition schedule land was vested on him and that he became owner and that finding appears to have attained finality.

¶9

In view of that, prima facie, respondents 1 to 3 have no right to interfere with the petitioner‟s possession with respect to the land covered by the said L.G.C. Hence, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.‟

¶10

¶11

At the time of hearing, the learned Assistant Government

¶12

Pleader for Revenue submitted that if at all the petitioner is in possession of the subject property and if there is necessity to take possession of the subject property of the petitioner, they will follow the procedure as contemplated under law.

¶13

In view of the Interim Orders of this Court and also in view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue at the time of hearing, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, if at all he is in possession of the same, without following due process as contemplated under law.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶17

Date : 06.12.2022 AVTP

¶18

¶19

238

¶20

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.29677 of 2015

¶22

Date : 06.12.2022

¶23

AVTP

¶24

¶25

Gullala Atchutam, s/o. late Narayana Swamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gullala Atchutam, s/o. late Narayana Swamy, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kattamanchi Dhananjayulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Godla Munirathnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Krothapalli (Pinnamaneni) Madhavi, W/o. Sri Pinnamaneni Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bevara Peda Sanyasi S/o Appala Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Gudaguntla Kanthamma Vs TheTahsildar

Smt. Dumpala Venkata Subbamma, Ysr Kadapa Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Assignment,Hyd., and 5 Otrs.