Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2022WP/9447/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court issued a writ under Article 226 directing respondent authorities not to dispossess petitioners from specific property without adhering to due process of law, recognizing the prior possession and lack of prior notice.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to dispossess petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law.

Smt.Sirapanasetti Maha Lakshmi,and 3 Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.9447 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 respondents in threatening forcible eviction of the petitioner from the property of Ac.200 cents in Survey No.307/3, Kanithi village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice or initiate legal proceedings against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refrain from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property”

¶6

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that their elders acquired land an extent of Ac.2.00 cents of land in Kanithi village from one 1) Sagi Seetharama Raju, 2) Sagi Suryanarayana Raju under a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1959. It is stated that in the sale deed dated 30.04.1959, the survey number was wrongly mentioned as Survey No.55 instead of Survey No.52 even though the property is situated within the boundaries mentioned in

VS, J

W.P.No.9447 of 2015

the sale deed. However, neither the grandfather of the petitioner nor their father sought rectification of the survey number in the sale deed. However, the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners was recorded in the revenue records and they have been paying taxes to the Government.

¶11

It is further stated that after a lapse of 20 years, when the petitioners raised a compound wall all around the property, the 1^st respondent visited the land and directed to vacate the land stating that the land was classified as “Gayalu”. However, the 1^st respondent neither issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶12

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

¶13

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue stated that in the event that the subject property is found to be a Government

VS, J

W.P.No.9447 of 2015

property, they will follow the due procedure as

¶18

contemplated under law.

¶19

In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land an extent of Ac.200 cents in Survey No.307/3, Kanithi village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

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

¶22

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶23

Date: 07.11.2022

¶24

Ksn

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Kethavath Lakshmi Bai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Doppasani Gangamma, Vs The State of A.P