Disposed

Karnati Sayamma W/o. Venkatareddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2022WP/30748/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions filed under Article 226 concerning dispossession from state lands. The Court, noting the respondents' assurance to follow due process and existing interim orders, directed authorities not to interfere with petitioners' possession except via lawful procedure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' subject properties in the two writ petitions without following due process of law.

Karnati Sayamma W/o. Venkatareddy Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.30748 and 28452 of 2015

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

Since the issue involved in both the cases is one and the same, these writ petitions are decided by way of a common order.

¶6

W.P. No.30748 of 2015:

¶7

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

¶8

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or Orders, Direction or Direction to declaring the action of the respondents to dispossess the petitioners form the Schedule Lands, for total extent of land Ac.28.22 cents in Sy. Nos.89 and 87 for an extent of 3.49 cents, Sy. No.95 for an extent of Ac.4.35 cents, in Sy. No.95 for an extent of Ac.4.35 cents, in Sy. No.95 for an extent of Ac.4.35 cents, in Sy. No.89 for an extent of Ac.4.08 cents, in Sy. No.88 for an extent of Ac.3.20 cents, and in Sy. No.88 for an extent of Ac.3.20 cents, situated at Bonthaguntapalli Village, Mogullur village, Ussainpuram Panchayat, Veligandla & Mandal, Markapuram Division, Prakasam District without following the procedure contemplated under the Law, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19(8), 21 and 300(A) of Constitution of India and

¶9

¶10

consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possess and enjoyment of the petitioners Schedule Properties, and to grant such other relief or reliefs …”

¶11

W.P. No.28452 of 2015:

¶12

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

¶13

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or Orders, Direction or Direction to declaring the action of the respondents to dispossess the petitioners form the Schedule Lands, total extent of land admeasuring Ac.34.97 cents in Sy. Nos.80 for an extent of 4.99 cents, Sy. No.81 for an extent of 2.64 and 83 for an extent of Ac.2.35 cents, in Sy. No.81 for an extent of 4.99 cents, in Sy. No.83 for an extent of 5.00 cents, in Sy. No.80 for an extent of 4.99 cents, in Sy. No.80 for an extent of 4.99 cents, and in Sy. No.80 for an extent of 2.11 cents, in Sy. No.81 for an extent of 2.88 cents, and total extent of Ac.14.63 cents in Sy. No.86/1 for an extent of 4.91 cents, Sy. No.86/2 for an extent of 4.91 cents, and 86/3 for an extent of 4.91 cents, situated at Bonthaguntapalli Village, Mogullur Revenue village, Ussainpuram Panchayat, Veligandla & Mandal, Markapuram Division, Prakasam District, without following the procedure contemplated under the Law, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19(8), 21 and 300(A) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere

¶14

¶15

in the peaceful possess and enjoyment of the petitioners Schedule Properties, and to grant such other relief or reliefs …”

¶16

On 10.09.2015 and 21.09.2015, when these matters came up for hearing, this Court granted interim orders in both the cases as follows:

¶17

“…the 5^th respondent is directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners with respect to the land claimed by them, as in the prayer, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to submit explanation.”

¶18

In view of the said interim orders, it appears that the petitioners are in possession of the said subject property.

¶19

When these matters came for hearing today, learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions submits that if at all the respondents intend to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, they will follow the due process of law.

¶20

Recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 10.09.2015 and on 21.09.2015 in both these matters , instead of going into the merits of these

¶21

¶22

cases, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject properties of the petitioners as mentioned above, if at all they are in possession of the subject properties as on today, except by following due process of law.

¶23

Accordingly, with the above directions, these writ petitions

¶24

are disposed of. No costs.

¶25

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

¶26

stand closed.

¶27

_________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 13.12.2022.

ASH

278

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶33

W.P. Nos.30748 and 28452 of 2015

¶34

Date:13.12.2022

¶35

ASH

Karnati Sayamma W/o. Venkatareddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnati Sayamma W/o. Venkatareddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

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

B.Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andha Paradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kamalapuri Vishwarupaachari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary

Peddada Mangaraju, S/o.Late P.Venkata Ramana, Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

Managing Committee Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 8

D.Venkataparatnam Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 3 Others

Kopanathi Venkata Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal