Disposed

Jatla Rajulamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2023WP/2521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the demolition of petitioners' huts. Due to disputed facts regarding eviction, the Court granted liberty to file objections and directed the Gram Panchayat to act after a hearing or within a specific timeframe before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to petitioners to file objections to show cause notices within one week. Direction to Sixth Respondent to pass orders after hearing within three weeks or one week from objection filing,

Jatla Rajulamma Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2521 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioners were in possession of Ac.0.9 cents

¶5

of land in Sy.No.111 of Molleru Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Alluri Sitaramaraju District. The thatched huts put up by the petitioners’ in this land were demolished on 11.01.2023. Aggrieved by the said demolition, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition contending that the said demolition had been carried out without any notice or opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioners to demonstre their right and title over the said property.

¶6

Sri N.Sri Hari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent-Gram Panchayat submits that two notices dated 10.11.2022 and 21.11.2022 were sought to be served on the petitioners, citing the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011. However, the petitioners

¶7

refused to receive these notices and the said notices were affixed to the walls of the thatched huts of the petitioners.

¶8

¶9

Subsequently, the huts were demolished and the petitioners were evicted from the said land.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes this fact and contends that the petitioners are still in possession of the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioners also disputes the service of any notice on the petitioners and submits that the endorsement shown at the bottom of these two notices were written for the purpose of creating a record and no notices were affixed to the huts of the petitioners.

¶11

There is a dispute as to whether notices were

¶12

served on the petitioners and there is a further dispute as to whether the petitioners have been evicted from the said property.

¶13

In view of these disputed facts and keeping in mind the fact that there is an allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with liberty given to the petitioners to file their objections to the said show cause notices dated 10.11.2022 and 21.11.2022. Copies of the said

¶14

¶15

notices have already been served on the learned counsel for the petitioners. It would be open to the petitioners to file their objections within a period of one (01) week from today. Upon filing of such objections, the 6^th respondent-Gram Panchayat shall pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of filing of the objections of the petitioners or after the lapse of one (01) week from today, whichever is earlier. In the event of the 6^th respondent-Gram Panchayat not being able to demonstrate that the property in question is the property of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioners shall be put back in possession of the said land/left undisturbed in possession of the land. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶18

16.02.2023 RKS

Jatla Rajulamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatla Rajulamma 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

G. Vijayalaxmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T Naresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Barala Gangadhara Sathya Varma Vs the State of Ap

Nattimabu Gari Abdul Rawoof Vs the State of Ap

Gana Issacu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Athota Asservadam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh