Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2022WP/42335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed to quash an eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar against a petitioner residing on Government land. The notice was challenged as illegal, but the Court held it unsustainable because it was issued in pursuance of an Enforcement Petition that was subsequently dismissed on grounds of maintainability during the writ's pendency.

What did the court decide?

The eviction notice in Rc.No.397/99-DT dated 18.12.2015 issued by the 4th respondent is set aside.

Kopanathi Venkata Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.42335 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notice in Rc.No.397/99-DT, dated 18.12.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Tadepalli, Guntur District, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the dwelling house bearing H.No.13-318, 13-301, 13-308 and 13-311 respective in Survey No.147/1A1, Seethanagaram village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District..”

¶6

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are residing at Sithanagaram, Tadepalli in Survey No.147/1A1 and were allotted house numbers by the then Gram Panchayat, Tadepalli. The petitioners are paying property tax to the Gram Panchayat. While so, the petitioners made a representation to the Government for grant of house site pattas for the land in which they are residing. However, the 4^th respondent served a Notice in Rc.No.397/99-DT, dated 18.12.2015 stating that the land admeasuring Ac.1.00

VS, J

W.P.No.42335 of 2015

cents situated in Survey No.147/1A1 of Sithanagaram village, Tadepalli, was encroached as the said land is to be allotted to Sri Ramakrishna Samithi School as per the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the orders of the Land Grabbing Tribunal vide LGT O.P.No.15/89 and LGT O.P.No.67/87 dated 27.07.1999 and 25.01.2005 and that the petitioners are directed to be removed from encroachment. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

This court, on 06.01.2016, while issuing notice before admission, passed the following order:

¶12

“There shall be status quo with regard to the subject properties bearing House Nos.13-318, 13-301, 13-308, and 13-311, located in Survey No.147/1A1 of 20^th ward, Sithanagaram, Tadepalli, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District.”

¶13

The 4^th respondent filed counter, inter alia , contending that Sri Ramakrishna Samithi, Azitsingh Nagar, Vijayawada, started an upper primary school in the year 1965 and it occupied certain extent of Government poramboke land and constructed buildings thereon for

VS, J

W.P.No.42335 of 2015

running its educational institution. They applied for alienation of Government land to an extent of Ac.6.90 cents at Seethanagaram to run the educational institution. On the request of the applicant, the Government alienated Ac.6.90 cents of land in Survey No.147/1A1 and 147/1A3 of Seethanagaram, Tadepalli vide G.O.Ms.No.3976 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 21.08.1980 and G.O.Ms.No.880 Revenue (Q) Department, dated 22.06.1982 on payment of concessional market value of Rs.10,000/- per acre subject to usual conditions of alienation. It is further stated that the land was already in enjoyment of Sri Ramakrishna Samithi and some poor fishermen illegally encroached a piece of land to an extent of Ac.1.30 cents out of Ac.6.90 cents, which was alienated to Ramakrishna Samithi. The said Samithi approached the III Additional District Judge, who issued orders dated 27.07.1999 in LGOP.No.15/89 Special Tribunal constituted under APLG (Prohibition) Act, 1982, directing implementation of the orders in LGOP. No.15/89. As per the orders, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, had taken steps for eviction of land

VS, J

W.P.No.42335 of 2015

grabbers from the schedule land and fixed 13-05-2002 for enforcement of eviction and informed to the SDPO, Guntur in Rc.No.6091/1999/LG, dated 08.05.2002 and requested to make necessary arrangement to implement the orders. It is further stated that basing on the show cause notice issued by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, a special report was submitted to the court. It is further stated that the 4^th respondent issues notices on the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, for eviction of encroachments fixing the date as 26.12.2015 and that the respondents are taking action as per the orders of the III Additional District Court, Guntur only by following due process of law. Previously the respondents tried to compensate the encroachers by providing house sites, but, the encroachers refused to take them and not to vacate the encroached land and the implementation of the orders is pending for a long time due to various reasons, the issue of present notice dated 18.12.2015 is not illegal and not against to natural justice.

VS, J

W.P.No.42335 of 2015

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶26

Having gone through the material on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the impugned notice in Rc.No.397/99-D.T., dated 18.12.2015 was issued pursuant to E.P.No.17 of 2004 in LGOP.No.15 of 1989 filed by the 5^th respondent-Sri Ramakrishna Samithi before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, seeking delivery of possession of property pursuant to the decree passed in LGA.No.10 of 1997. The said impugned notice was issued directing removal of all encroachments by 26.12.2005.

¶27

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record a copy of the orders in E.P.No.17 of 2004 in LGOP.No.15 of 1989 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, and submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, E.P.No.17 of 2004 in LGOP.No.15 of 1989 was dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, vide its order

VS, J

W.P.No.42335 of 2015

dated 01.09.2007, on the ground of maintainability of the E.P., wherein it is stated that as per Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, it is for the impleaded respondent to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, who has to take steps for implementing the orders, but, the impleaded respondent, instead of approaching the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer for implementing the orders, filed the E.P., which is not maintainable and accordingly, the E.P. was dismissed.

¶32

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this court is of the view that as the impugned notice was issued in pursuance of the E.P.No.17 of 2004 in LGOP.No.15 of 1989, which was dismissed during the pendency of the writ petition, the impugned notice dated 18.12.2015 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the notice in Rc.No.397/99-DT, dated 18.12.2015 issued by the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, Tadepalli is hereby set aside,

VS, J

W.P.No.42335 of 2015

leaving it open to the 5^th respondent herein to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned for implementation of the orders passed in LGOP.No.15 of 1989. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶39

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶40

Date: 13.12.2022

¶41

Ksn

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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