Disposed

M. Yesathru Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2022WP/563/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court dismissed the petition because the Respondent admitted in the counter-affidavit that it never attempted to dispossess the Petitioner of her house site. The matter was closed with liberty to approach the court again if a cause of action arises.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed. Liberty granted to invoke remedies available in law if any cause of action arises.

M. Yesathru Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.563 OF 2021

¶4

M.Yesathru Rani … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and Others ..… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.B.Sriram Kartik Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Revenue

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

The matter is posted under Specially Identified Cases.

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶10

“……to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from his house site admeasuring Ac.0.01 ½ cents in Plot No.28 in Survey No.90/1B of Chinapulleru Village, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject matter house site and to pass such other order or orders….”

¶11

At the time of considering the matter, the learned

¶12

Government Pleader for Revenue, draws the attention of this Court

¶13

¶14

to Para No.14 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it is asserted as

¶15

follows:

¶16

“14. In reply to the contents of the petitioner’s affidavit in Para 9, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner to the Hon’ble High Court to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his house site measuring an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ cents in Plot No.28 in R.S.No.90/1B of Chinapulleru Village of Undi Mandal, West Godavari District deserves no consideration as the respondents have never tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house site of the petitioner measuring an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ cents in Plot No.28 in R.S.No.90/1B of Chinapulleru Village of Undi Mandal of West Godavari District….”

¶17

In view of the above said statement on oath, the Writ

¶18

Petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedies available in Law, in case, if any cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶21

Date: 16.11.2022 BLV

¶22

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.563 OF 2021

¶25

Dt: 16.11.2022

¶26

BLV

M. Yesathru Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Yesathru Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G N Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N Hemalatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasi Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Santhosham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gunnam Merimma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Elijabeth Vs State of Ap