Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2022WP/31857/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writing a writ petition challenging the threat to dispossess petitioners from agricultural lands, the Court, relying on the Government Pleader's submission, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without following the due process of law.

Bevara Peda Sanyasi S/o Appala Swamy Vs The State… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31857 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

“ …to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossesses the petitioners from their agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents, Ac.1.70 cents, and Ac.1.40 cents, covering Sy. Nos.79/2P of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District respectively granting under assignment dated 01.04.1970 by the 3^rd respondent without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioners from the above said lands without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case …”

¶6

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition.

¶7

Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3, on behalf of all respondents, wherein it is stated that, the DR number mentioned by the writ petitioners and the extent mentioned in Sy.No.79/2 is fake and invented for the purpose of filing the writ petition before this Court and for misrepresenting the facts by producing fake and fabricated D-form pattas and

¶8

the SIT Authorities had seized the fake and fabricated documents from one i.e. Dy.Inspector of Surveyors house.

¶9

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the name of the 3^rd petitioner is also involved in the Tampering of records i.e. IB register of Madhurawada Village of Visakhapatnam (Rural) Vide Katha No.54, and unauthorizedly incorporated the name of 3^rd petitioner and the same was registered as Cr.No.163/2017 of Arilova Police Station and the writ petitioners are not bonafide persons and the D-Form pattas produced by the petitioners are fake documents.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that if at all the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, they will follow the due process of law.

¶11

In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, instead of going into the merits of the case, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property as mentioned above, if at all they are in possession as on today, except by following the due process of law.

¶12

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

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

¶14

stand closed.

¶15

________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 06.12.2022.

ASH

285

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶20

W.P. No.31857of 2015

¶21

Date: 06.12.2022

¶22

ASH

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bevara Peda Sanyasi S/o Appala 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

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

Smt.Gudaguntla Kanthamma Vs TheTahsildar

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

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