Disposed

Mediboina Anjaneyulu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jun 2023WP/13979/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging eviction from government land, the High Court directed the appellate authority (3rd respondent) to dispose of the suspension application within four weeks. The Court also observed that taking symbolic possession within the appeal period without physical dispossession is legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the suspension application within four weeks; observation that symbolic possession taken within appeal period is unsustainable.

Mediboina Anjaneyulu Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13979 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

bSb'SSS?'' ’-M. Thukkuluru

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

**' Andhra Pradesh A-ist GWis^rr'^'v 2. 12 o '®A'Ct Collector, Eluru District. Eluru Sf Nuzvid, Eluru District 4. The Tahsildar, Nuzvi'd Marida'rNuzvS^ . Eluru District

...RESPONDENTS

isBsgEg

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from his land in an extent of Ac. 1.36 cents in Sy. No. 77/3 of Thukkuluru Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District by suspending the order passed by the 4*’’ respondent in Rc. A. 46/2023 dated 19.04.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 13979 OF 2023

Between: -

Mediboina Anjaneyulu

... Petitioner

and

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Kambhampati Ramesh Babu

¶29

Counsel for respondents : The G.P. for Revenue

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

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

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition, in short, is that the 4* respondent is trying to dispossess him from the land of an extent of Ac. 1.36 cents situated in survey No.77/3 of Thukkuluru Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Eluru District, pending consideration of the

¶33

¶34

appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the 4^^ respondent in Rc.A.46/2023, dated 19.4.2023.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the averments made in the writ petition, advanced arguments contending that the petitioner, who is a landless poor person, has been cultivating the subject land. He submits that the petitioner’s ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the subject land along with other lands and the subject land fell to the share of the petitioner. He submits that the 4th respondent issued notice dated 24.12.2022 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 alleging that the petitioner and his brothers were in unauthorized occupation of the subject land, stated to be a pathway. He submits that the petitioner submitted explanation on 07.1.2023 stating that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land, which is classified as a poramboke, since long and he has perfected title to the said land by virtue of adverse possession. Learned counsel submits that the 4th respondent issued the proceedings

¶36

¶37

¶38

dated 19.4.2023, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, directing the petitioner to vacate the land immediately. He submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3*^ respondent challenging the order dated 19.4.2023 passed by the 4* respondent, but the 3*^ respondent did not pass any order in the appeal in spite of repeated requests.

¶39

At the time of considering the matter on 16.6.2023, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed a copy of the written instructions received from the 4th respondent for perusal of this Court. After going through . the contents of the said instructions and by making pertain observations, this Court directed the 4th respondent to appear before this Court. As per the directions dated 16.6.2023, the concerned Tahsildar-4th respondent appeared before this Court. He states that pursuant to the order dated 19.4.2023 -passed by him, an attempt had been made to serve a copy of the same on the petitioner and as he refused to receive, the same was affixed at the subject matter land. He also submits that though it was mentioned

¶40

¶41

in the instructions that possession was already taken, except sjmibolic possession, no physical possession was taken and the trees existing in the subject matter land are intact. Though the 4th respondent states that only symbolic possession is taken, any action for resumption of the subject matter land is not sustainable, as it was resorted to even before expiry of the appeal time, that too immediately on the next day of passing of the order, which is illegal.

¶42

Be that as it may. Admittedly, an appeal along with an application seeking suspension of the order dated 19.4.2023 passed by the 4th respondent was filed on 02.5.2023 before the 3^^ respondent. Therefore this Court, instead of further probing into the matter or going into merits of the case, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the 3«-d respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with Law, on the application seeking suspension of the order dated 19.4.2023, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

¶43

» II 111 •»

¶44

¶45

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 4th respondent- Mr.D.V.S.Yellarao, Tahsildar, Nuzvid shall be careful in discharging his official duties in future.

¶46

6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel. miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

ECTIOhTOFFICER

¶50

•••To,-:-. lA »•. 5-^13 „ . Collector. Eluru District. Eluru 3. The Sub-Collec^br, Nuzvid, Eluru District rS' Mandal Nuzvid. Eluru District ^tp;:SRI. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Advocate fOPUCl 6r'Two?©esio GP for Revenue .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT]

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/06/2023

ORDER

WP.No.13979 of 2023

¶55

13
g 0 1 SEF 2123
. Current Section

¶56

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Mediboina Anjaneyulu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mediboina Anjaneyulu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Virupakshi Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Venkata Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kamireddy Seethamma/Seethamahalakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Kesavaih Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Muddada Raja Rao Vs the State of Ap

Vanteru Lakshmamma Vs the State of Ap