Disposed

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022WP/5810/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the denial of land assignment pattas. Directing authorities to consider pending representations on eleven specific dates and pass orders on pattas within four weeks, the court also stayed dispossession proceedings pending such orders.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider pending representations and pass orders for assignment of pattas within four weeks; stay on dispossession pending orders.

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.5810 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 action of the 2^nd respondent in not allowing to enjoy the land an extent of Ac.25.00 cents in Survey No.283/2 of Dandlapalli village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, instead of considering representations dated 22.12.2014, 05.01.2015 and 02.02.2015 submitted by the petitioner for assignment of pattas as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.”

¶6

It is the claim of the petitioners that land an extent of Ac.90.96 cents situated in Survey No.283, Dandlapalli village, Pullampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District originally belonged to one Gorla Lakshmikar Reddy, who surrendered an extent of Ac.45.00 cents of land to the Government under the Land Ceiling Act, while retaining the remaining extent of Ac.45.96 cents of land. After the said surrender, the Government neither used it for any other purpose nor allotted to any poor persons. While so, the petitioners,

VS, J

W.P.No.5810 of 2015

being landless poor occupied the land an extent of Ac.25.00 cents and made it fit for cultivation by removing shrubs. Thereafter, they made representations to the 4^th respondent requesting to issue assignment pattas in their favour. Since there was no response, the petitioners made representations in Praja Vani on 22.12.2014, 05.02.105 and 02.02.2015 and the same are pending consideration. However, the 4^th respondent instead of considering the request is trying to evict the petitioners without any right. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, stated, on instructions, that the respondent authorities will consider the representation of the petitioner, if any pending.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the representations made by the petitioners are still pending, instead of going into the merits of the case, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent

VS, J

W.P.No.5810 of 2015

authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioners dated 22.12.2014, 05.02.105 and 02.02.2015, if not yet disposed of, and pass appropriate orders for issuance of assignment pattas in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till such orders are passed, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject land without following due process of law.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

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

¶19

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶20

Date: 15.11.2022

¶21

Ksn

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vathaluru Venkata Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

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

Korsa Laxmi Vs The State of of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Goddu Sitamahalakshmi, Vs The Tahsildar

Ghanta Venkata Naga Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kamatham Chinna Rami Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ramalingadu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaku Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The State of Ap.