Allowed

Goddu Sitamahalakshmi, v. The Tahsildar

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2022WP/5761/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Rule 15(2) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1988. The court quashed the notices and directed non-interference with the petitioners' possession of the disputed land until due legal processes are completed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices dated 28-2-2015 are set aside, and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession of the subject property until due process of law is followed.

Goddu Sitamahalakshmi, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5761 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notices dated 28-2-2015 issued by the 1^st respondent on 2-3-2015 directing the petitioners to deliver possession of their property within a week to the owners and attempted to demolish their houses at the influence of the 4^th respondent by affixing the said notices to their houses as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction to him as the land grabbing court not yet numbered the L.G.C and not yet issued notices to the petitioners and not yet passed any final orders as per Rule 15(1) and no directions are issued to the R.D.O under Rule 15(2) of A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1988 and consequently to set aside the said notices dated 28-2-2015 and direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioners houses in an extent of 200 Sq.Yds and 120 Sq.Yds respectively situated in R.S. No.234 of Gollaigudam Rose Garden Pampula Cheruvu road, Eluru, West Godavari District and pass such other orders”.

¶6

On 04.03.2015, when the writ petition came up for

¶7

admission, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶8

“….There shall be interim direction, as prayed for.”

¶9

A perusal of the material papers filed by the petitioners, it appears that in pursuance of the private complaint received on 29.08.2014 claiming that the land is a Government land near water

¶10

¶11

works Canal road of Eluru Village and Municipality, West Godavari District, which was grabbed by the petitioners herein and others, the Registry has taken note of the representation about the alleged grabbing of Government land and to verify whether the said representation comes within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶12

In pursuance of the said note, the Tahsildar-1^st respondent has treated the same as an order and has issued notice in FORM-V under Rule 15(2) to the petitioners directing them to deliver possession of an extent of 165 Sq. yards and 72 Sq yards respectively in Sy.No.234/3 to them.

¶13

The impugned notice in FORM-V, dated 28.02.2015 issued to the petitioners, reads as under:-

¶14

“The Special Court/Special Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P. Act 12 of 1982) by its order number 2715/2014, dt.19.09.2014 has decided that the ownership of the land grabbed mentioned in the schedule below, belongs to the Government/local authority/religious or charitable institution or endowments or wakf/person (by name) Revenue Department (Canal Poramboke).

¶15

You are hereby deputed to take possession of the land grabbed on behalf of the Government from Smt. Goddu Sitamaha Lakshmi, W/o Satyanarayana resident of Canal road, Gulabi Thota, Eluru of West Godavari District who is in possession of occupation of the said land and deliver the possession to the said owners, within a week from the date of receipt of this authorization. The fact of delivering the land to the rightful owner may be reported immediately.”

¶16

¶17

When the petitioners are in possession of the subject lands only in pursuance of the possession certificates in respect of the subject properties, issued by the Tahsildar-1^st respondent himself, he should not have issued the impugned notices dated 28.02.2015 directing the petitioners to handover the possession of the subject property to them, however, without following the due process of law.

¶18

In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notices dated 28.02.2015 issued in FORM-V, leaving it open to the respondents to follow the due process of law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property i.e. in an extent of 200 Sq.Yds and 120 Sq.Yds respectively situated in R.S. No.234 of Gollaigudam Rose Garden Pampula Cheruvu road, Eluru, West Godavari District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶21

Date : 14.11.2022 ARR

¶22

¶23

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.5761 of 2015