Disposed

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Nov 2022WP/3787/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petitioner sought declaration of illegality regarding a notice to demolish their building and a direction not to interfere with possession. The court found no intent to demolish by the respondent based on the counter-affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the schedule property and not to demolish the building except by due process of law.

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.3787 of 2016

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in seeking to demolish the petitioners’ building in Survey No.1079/1, Ungatur Village, Telaprole Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners, except under due process of law …”

¶6

The Writ Petitioners also sought for an Interim Relief directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the schedule property. When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has passed an Interim Order on 10.02.2016, which is as follows:

¶7

“ Having regard to the submission and facts of the case and as the petitioner is apprehending demolition of the structures on the ground that a part of the residential house was converted into shops without obtaining permission in that regard, this Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for granting the interim direction as prayed for .

¶8

Accordingly, there shall be interim direction as prayed for until further orders”

¶9

¶10

The petitioners claim is only not to interfere with their peaceful possession except under process of law.

¶11

The respondent No.3 filed their counter stating that the respondent-Grampanchayat never attempted or had any intention to demolish the petitioners’ property. In fact, the 2^nd petitioner has constructed shops five in number. On that the 3^rd respondent issued notice dated 02.02.2016 vide notice No.1/2016 directing the 2^nd petitioner herein, who is son of 1^st petitioner, to furnish the documents relating to their property and also the permission of the construction of shops etc. The said notice was received by the 2^nd petitioner herein. Without furnishing the particulars as sought by this respondent through the said notice, the petitioners herein approached this Hon’ble Court and filed the present writ petition.

¶12

When the matter came up for hearing, on instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that in the counter it is specifically mentioned that the respondent-authorities never attempted or had any intention to demolish the petitioners’ property.

¶13

In view of the above, no further adjudication is required in this matter. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere

¶14

¶15

with the possession of the petitioners over the schedule property and not to demolish the petitioners’ building in Survey No.1079/1 of Ungatur Village, Telaprolu Mandal, Krishna District, except by due process of law.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date : 02.11.2022

AVTP

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3787 of 2016

¶25

Date : 02.11.2022

¶26

AVTP

¶27

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanadhapalli Nallaiah v. the State of Ap

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

B. Ramudu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.R. Ranga Reddy, Anantapur Dist., and 4 Otrs. Vs the State of a.P.,L.a.,Hyd.,and 2 Otrs.

K. Hanamantharaju, Anantapuram Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

A.Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Prl. Secretary

Devineni Gopi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O

Danala Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.