Disposed

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2022WP/5111/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction not to dispossess the petitioner from specific land. Upon hearing, the court directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from Sy.No.214/2 land in Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District without following due process of law.

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.5111 of 2015

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶4

“to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of „Writ of Mandamus‟ declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.214/2 an extent of Ac.1.10 cents of Gopishettypally Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District which is under occupation and enjoyment by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and against the law and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.214/2 an extent of Ac.1.10 cents of Gopishettypally Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other orders”.

¶5

On 06.04.2015, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Court granted interim order as prayed for by the petitioner directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.214/2 an extent of Ac.1-10 cents of Gopishettypally Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District, pending final disposal of main writ petition.

¶6

¶7

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, without following due process of law, without touching the merits of the case.

¶8

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

¶9

In view of the above 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 respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.214/2 an extent of Ac.1.10 cents of Gopishettypally Village, Karvetinagaram Mandal, Chittoor District, if she is in possession as on today, except by following due process of law.

¶10

¶11

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶14

Date : 08.11.2022 ARR

¶15

¶16

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.5111 of 2015

¶18

Date : 08.11.2022

¶19

ARR

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, 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

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Sirapanasetti Maha Lakshmi,and 3 Vs Tahsildar,Vps Dist,and 2

Pothani Lakshmaiah, S/o. P.Ramaiah, Vs The Tahsildar

V. Rajani Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary

Eerakkagari Chinnababu S/o E. Bavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its

P.G. Eeranna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary