Dismissed

Obili Sridhar Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2023WP/1314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a direction restraining the 5th respondent (Gram Panchayat) from interfering with or dispossessing the petitioner from the subject Gramakantam land until the Panchayat establishes its right over the property.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from the subject property until the Gram Panchayat establishes its right over the property as per law.

Obili Sridhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1314 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to declare the action of the respondents in trying to interfere/ dispossess the petitioner from the land an extent of Ac.0.05 cents (242 square yards) in Sy.No.41/2 of Puttanavaripalle village lands, Pullampet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District (now in Annamayya District) without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere/ dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law and pass ........”

¶6

The brief facts of the petition are that the subject land is Gramakantam land. The total extent of the land in the said survey number is Ac.0.27 cents. The father of the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0.07 cents from decades without any objection. After the death of his father, the petitioner succeeded the said property and he purchased another extent of Ac.0.05 cents in the subject survey number through unregistered sale deed, subsequently, he got registered sale deed from its rightful owner on 26.11.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached the 4^th respondent to conduct a survey and submit report, accordingly, Mandal Surveyor conducted survey and submitted report, according to the same, the petitioner is in

¶7

¶8

possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.12 cents including the subject property. Accordingly, Tahsildar has also issued an endorsement on 21.11.2022. While that being so, 5^th respondent, who is the Gram Panchayat came to the subject property on 04.01.2022 and tried to interfere/ dispossess the petitioner from the subject property as it is a Gramakantam land, without following due process contemplated under the Act, hence the writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and he is a bonafide purchaser and he purchased the same through a registered sale deed and the same was confirmed by the revenue authorities vide endorsement dated 21.11.2022. It is not in dispute that the said property is a Gramakantam land. In the said circumstances, the respondents have no authority to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and the said issue was decided by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.23904 of 2018 by following earlier judgments of this Hon’ble Court stating that the respondents have no authority to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, if it is a Gramakantam land. Directions were given restraining the respondents in interfering with the possession of property, hence the same ratio is applicable in this case also. Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioner requested to direct the respondents not to interfere/ dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

¶10

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 5^th respondent contended that it is not in dispute that the subject property is a Gramakantam land and the Gram Panchayat has every right to protect their properties and Section 58 of Act contemplates the procedure to protect and vacate the encroachers, as the subject property is a property of Gram Panchayat, they have to follow the procedure contemplated under the Act while vacating the petitioner from the subject property.

¶12

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, it is not in dispute that if it is a property declared as Gramakantam land, the revenue authorities have no power to interfere/ dispossess, but if it is a Gramakantam land, initially, the Gram Panchayat has to establish their right over the property, if at all they are able to prove their right over the subject property, they are entitled to proceed as per law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to interfere / dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶15

closed.

¶16

__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 23.01.2023 sj

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶21

(Disposed of)

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.1314 of 2023

¶23

Date: 23.01.2023

¶24

Obili Sridhar Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obili Sridhar Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dronadula Ayyapareddy Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Hsr Infra Projects, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dronadula Ayyapareddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Rangarao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gooduru Ramalingeswara Vidya Sagar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Haribabu Achari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh