Disposed

Uppu Tirupataiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jun 2023WP/14028/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an encroachment notice issued under the HMC Act, 1955. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners' representation, hear all parties, and dispose of the matter within three months without coercive steps pending the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to consider representation submitted by 09.06.2023, hear all parties, and dispose of matter within three months by completing enquiry in accordance with law.

Uppu Tirupataiah Vs the State of Ap — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.14028 of 2023

¶2

Between:

¶3

Uppu Tirupataiah, S/o. Uppu Ramanaiah, Aged about 71 years, R/o.17^th Division, Vaddipalem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District and 4 others.

¶4

....... Petitioners

¶5

And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development (Budget) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. and another.

¶7

...... Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶10

learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

Sri S.S Kumar, the learned counsel submits that, the complainant in the impugned notice, dated 06.06.2023 filed a caveat. But, the same is not registered.

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent U/Sec.401, 405 and 406 of HMC Act, 1955, dated 06.06.2023.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, according to the petitioners, there is an existing Temple in an extent of 40 Ankanams, out of Ac.6.47 cents in Sy.No.132 of

¶14

¶15

Vaddepalem Village, Nellore City. While so, the complainant’s mother, in order to remove the said Temple and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said land, filed suit in O.S.No.29 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, against the petitioners arraying them as the defendants in the said suit and the same was dismissed on merits vide judgment, dated 24.02.2023. No further appeal is preferred against the said judgment. Having failed to secure any favourable relief by the said complainant, she lodged a complaint before the 2^nd respondent with false averments, as if the petitioners occupied the entire public street preventing ingress and egress to the house of the complainant, who is none other than the daughter of the plaintiff in the above said suit. Without verifying the facts, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notice U/Sec.401, 405 and 406 of HMC Act, 1955, dated 06.06.2023 calling for explanation and removal of the said encroachment within 15 days by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that, the impugned proceedings are only in the form of notice issued U/Sec.401, 405 and 406 of HMC Act, 1955, for which the petitioners can give or can submit explanation and they can participate in the enquiry as well. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶17

¶18

submits that, the petitioners have already submitted their explanation, dated 09.06.2023, which is pending before the said authority.

¶19

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners, dated 09.06.2023 by proceeding with the impugned notice U/Sec.401, 405 and 406 of HMC Act, 1955, dated 06.06.2023 by hearing all the parties concerned, including the complainant and the petitioners and all otherS concerned. After verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent, on completion of enquiry, pursuant to the above said impugned notice, dated 06.06.2023 strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. Pending enquiry only there shall not be any coercive steps. This order shall be subject to outcome of the merits of the enquiry before the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶23

16.06.2023 KMS

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 14028 OF 2023

¶27

16.06.2023

¶28

KMS

Uppu Tirupataiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppu Tirupataiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakkireddy Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tomorathu Seetharamulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Prabhakar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rahul Builders Vs the State of Ap

K. Rama Chandra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Padarthi Padmavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh