Disposed

Polu Eswaramma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC3 May 2023WP/10362/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the demolition of her thatched house. The court directed respondents to conduct a survey of the property following specific government order procedures before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conduct a survey of the subject property and take appropriate action based on the survey report following G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011.

Polu Eswaramma, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

present

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10362 OF 201 fi

¶5

/s
gp A

¶6

Between:

¶7

Polu Eswaramma, W/o. Polu. Pedda Thii ''v/o. Holu. Pedda Thippanna, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Coolie R/o. Plot.No.55, Ramachandraya Palli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

TU O and

¶10

1. Principal. Secretary, Revenue

¶11

Th P ■ ^®c'’®t3riat Buddings, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶12

1. The Divisional Panchayath Officer, Jammalamadugu.^YS? District 3. The Gram Panchavath Ramarhandrawo D.siii » __ r>. . Secretary, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR District ra.iunaydui

¶13

1. Pantam Naga Subbaiah, S/o. Pedda Subba Ravudu Saroanch 5 Polu Obul'S'h Mylavaram Mandal. YSR^District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be virago? MANDaK particularly one in the nature of ConsfitX^M^I.'i'® “** Articles 14, 21 and 300-A and to interfere w th consequentially direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not resMrfofth^^=Jn peacefuhpossession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the said property without following due process of law.

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP, NO: 13054 OF 2016)

¶17

the affirtS°rt T?" ‘'’®‘"’® circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be oleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession Tn Plot NoT<i"* °’ P®"‘'Ortef's family in respect of house with appurtenant land in Plot No.55, in an extent of Ao.0.03 cts in Sy.No.148 of Ramachandravaoalli Mylavaram Mandal, YSR District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶18

f'n

¶19

f -/

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,3 : SRI G VENETA REDDY^SC FOR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4,5 :

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

!
/■
; - /

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. l0362 of 2016

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in demolishing the thatched house in part, with its appurtenant l^d in Plot No.55, in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No. 148 of Ramachandrayapalli, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR district as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has passed interim order on 30.03.2016 directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s family in respect of subject property for a period of four(4)

weeks.

= -.0

After notice, the respondent has filed counter. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the respondents never touched the thatched or pucca house belongs to the petitioner in Sy.No.l48 of Ramachandrayalli Village and there is a well opposite to the petitioner’s house and also there is a C.C road in between the well and the petitioner’s house. The petitioner started to use the place in around the well for the cattle purpose, due to that the vicinity of the said area became unhygienic and health hazardous. Based on the compliant received from the public, the authorities have removed the cattle shed. It is further stated that the well which was encroached by the Siva Laxmamma at Ramachandrayapalli was evicted by the Tahsildar and the well is free from encroachments. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perusal of the material filed along with this Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to conduct survey of the subject property after issuing notice to the petitioner and as per the survey report, the respondents are directed to take appropriate action by

} t

/
f

following the procedure contemplated under G.Q.Ms.No.l88 dated 21.07,2011. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

¶42

disposed of. No costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶44

Petition shall stand closed.

¶45

To,

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSrSTANT^EGISTRAR SECTl^irOFnCER

¶48

Th^ Officer, Jammalamadugu YSR District RlaSttal®YSR'2i8®T Ram'achandraya Palli Village; . 7. ?wo cS Coptes ’’“''•y' SC for Gram Panchayath [6puc') <5^ ■

¶49

• ■ f ’5"
-1'.' .. fl

HIGH COURT

DATED;04/05/2023

ORDER

WP.No.10362 of 2016

¶54

I »4 SEP 2823
.1

¶55

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Polu Eswaramma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polu Eswaramma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Chinnam Mamata Vs G. Sai Prasad

G.Dhrakshayanamma, W/o. R.v.Kumar Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)

Davuluri Venkata Siva, Vs The State of A.P. Rep by its secretary, Department of

Jinaga Bhaskar Rao S/o Bhai Vs The State of A.P represented by its Principal Secretary

Pradeep Goel Vs the State of Ap

P.Santhoshi Kumari, and 5 Others, Vs Prl.Secy., Health and Medical and Familt Welfare Dept., and 3 Othe