Disposed

Boyapati Srinivasulu Naidu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2023WP/2395/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the proposed laying of a cemented road through the petitioners' land. It directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the property except by following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners' property (Ac. 6-50 cents in Sy.No. 420, Ponnutipalem) except by following due process of law.

Boyapati Srinivasulu Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2395 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶5

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ order or Direction, declaring the action of Respondents in contemplating to form/lay CC road Extension from Ponnutipalem to Saraswathi Nagar Extension through petitioners land situated in Sy.No.420 to an extent of Ac.6-50 cents of Ponnutipalem Revenue Village and Gram Panchayath, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, irregular, irrational without any authority of law and violative of provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere in any manner with Petitioners possession over the said lands and also not to form/lay CC road Extension from Ponnutipalem to Saraswathi Nagar Extension through petitioners land situated in Sy.No.420 to an extent of Ac.6-50 cents of Ponnutipalem Revenue Village and Gram Panchayath, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders….”

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of land to an extent of Ac.6.50 cents situated in Sy.No.420 of Ponnutipalem Village & Gram Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, having acquired the same from their ancestors.

¶8

¶9

While the matter being so, the respondent authorities and

¶10

their men have been repeatedly visiting the petitioners land and threatening the petitioners to vacate the land for laying C.C. road without following due process of law and without paying any compensation to the petitioners.

¶11

When the matter came up for admission on 02.02.2021, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶12

“…Till then, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without following due process of law.”

¶13

Thereafter, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 24.11.2022, the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings has furnished a copy of written instructions of the Executive Engineer, dated 12.07.2022 informing the Court that, on verification, the subject road pertains to the Panchayat Raj Department and that the R&B officials are not interfering with the petitioners property in any manner.

¶14

Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 to implead the Gram Panchayat as respondent No.8 and accordingly said application was ordered dated 01.03.2023.

¶15

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.8/Gram Panchayat, on oral instructions submitted that, the Gram

¶16

¶17

Panchayat is not intending to lay any cement road through the petitioners land and they never threatened the petitioners to evict the said land.

¶18

In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners property i.e. land to an extent of Ac.6-50 cents in Sy.No.420 situated in Ponnutipalem Revenue Village and Gram Panchayath, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, except by following due process of law.

¶19

Accordingly, with the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶21

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶22

Date : 11.04.2023 KGR

¶23

¶24

161

¶25

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2395 of 2021

¶27

Date : 11.04.2023

¶28

KGR

Boyapati Srinivasulu Naidu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boyapati Srinivasulu Naidu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India)Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.Nagi Reddy, S/o B.Konda Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varampati Amarnath Reddy Vs the State of Ap

G Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh