Disposed

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2022WP/9313/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the 3rd respondent's interference with her peaceful possession of certain lands in Guntur District. The High Court, noting an enquiry was pending, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands without following due process of law.

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.9313 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 3^rd respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment with the lands of the petitioner in Survey No.892/10/2 to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents; 2) Survey No.897/26/B3 to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents; 3) Survey No.457 to an extent of Ac.0.65 cents; 4) Survey No.897/16 to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, all are situated in Piduguralla Municipality, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.”

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that she is absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.892/10/2; 2) Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.897/26/B3; 3) Ac.0.65 cents in Survey No.457; 4) Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No.897/16 all are situated in Piduguralla Municipality, Guntur District, having acquired the same from ancestors. Her name was also mutated in revenue records and was issued pattadar pass books and

VS, J

W.P.No.9313 of 2015

title deeds. The petitioner also obtained agricultural loan under Kisan credit vide loan account No.758. While the things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent started interfering with the lands of the petitioner without there being any cause and without issuing any notice. The action of the 3^rd respondent in interfering with the possession of the lands is nothing but an abuse of power being a public officer. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

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

¶12

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue produced a copy of the instructions in Rc.350/2022-DT, dated 07.11.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Pidiguralla Mandal, wherein it is stated that as per RSR, Survey No.457 is classified as “Patta Land”, Survey No.892/10-2 is classified as “Dotted Land”, Survey No.897/26 is classified as “Dotted Land” and Survey No.897/16 is classified as “Dotted Land”. Survey No.897/16 and Survey No.897/26 are included in prohibitory properties list and the subject lands are under

VS, J

W.P.No.9313 of 2015

enquiry at Revenue Court and after following the due process of law, action may be initiated on merits.

¶17

In view of the circumstances stated above, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands without following due process of law.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.892/10/2; 2) Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.897/26/B3; 3) Ac.0.65 cents in Survey No.457; 4) Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No.897/16 all are situated in Piduguralla Municipality, Guntur District, without following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

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

¶20

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶21

Date: 07.11.2022

¶22

Ksn

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, 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

Macherla Chennamma, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Pri. Secretary

Murari Venkateswara Rao Vs The 5tate of Andhra Pradesh

Kasthuri Manayam, Chittoor Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

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

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

Doppasani Gangamma, Vs The State of A.P