Dismissed

Veerla Munaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2023WP/25740/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction from land. It held that the Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts of possession but directed authorities not to interfere with 0.10 cents possessed by petitioner without due process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioner's possession of Ac.0-10 cents in S.No. 66/4 without following due process of law.

Veerla Munaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 25740 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Veerla Munaiah, S/o. China Kotaiah, R/o. D.No.1-36, Bokinala Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^Dist.

¶11

The District Collector, Krishna Dist., Machilipatnam.

¶12

The Tahsildhar, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist.

¶13

The Village Revenue Officer, Bokinala Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circunnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of house property bearing D.No. 1-36, Assessment No.36 constructed in an extent of Ac.0-44 cents of land situated in R.S.No.66/2 of Bokinela Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist. without following due process of law, procedure and without issuing notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently command the respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property in any^manner.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2, 3 and 4 not to interfere in the petitioners land for an

¶18

extent of Ac.0-44 cents of land situated in R.S.No.66/2 of Bokinela Village Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist. '

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Between:

¶21

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^Dist. 2. The District Collector, Krishna Dist., Machilipatnam.

¶22

The Tahsildhar, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist.

¶23

The Village Revenue Officer, Bokinala Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist.

¶24

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶25

AND

¶26

Veerla Munaiah, S/o. C^ina Kotaiah, R/o. D.No.1-36,^{BokinalaVillage,Unguturu} Mandal, Krishna Dist. /

¶27

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt:^-01-2021 passed in WP.No.25740/2020 and dismiss the writ petition ^

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAMACHANDRA REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.25740 OF 2020

¶35

Between:

¶36

Veerla Munaiah, S/o China Kotaiah, Hindu, 52 years, R/o D.No. 1-36, Bokinala Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶37

... Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and three others.

¶40

... Respondents

¶41

Counsels for the petitioners : Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for respondent No. 1 to 4 : GP for Revenue

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶44

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶45

“... to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of house property bearing D.No. 1-36, assessment No.36 constructed in an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in of land situated in R.S.No.66/2 of Bokinela Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District, without following^due process of law, procedure and without issuing notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unconditional violative of principles of natural justice and consequently command the

¶46

Page 2 of 7

¶47

SRS,J W.P.No.25740 of 2020

¶48

‘A

¶49

respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property in any manner and pass such other or further orders..”

¶50

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.66/2^ofBokinela Village from one Yadavalli Harinadh, son of Koteswara^Rao, under sale agreement dated 23.01.2010. Petitioner constructed

¶51

a thatched house and has been residing therein with his family. The house was assessed to tax under Assessment No.36.^Local authority assigned D.No. 1-36. Petitioner also got electricity connection vide bearing No.61441505000165 from APCPDCL.

¶52

Respondent authorities are intended to allot house^sitesto the houseless poor under Navarathnalu Scheme. Respondent No.3 approached the petitioner and directed him to^vacatethe property, enabling them to divide the same into plots.^Though, in the agreement of sale, the property is described^thelandisin R.S.No.59/1, however, the property is situated in R.S.No.66/2^of Bokinela Village. On 26.12.2020, respondent authorities^cameto the propert}^ ariH tried to dispossess the petitioner^withthehelp of police. Hence, the writ petition.

¶53

RespundenL No.3 liled counter affidavit, wherein, it wuo contended inter-uliQ., that the land in R.S.No.66 of Bokinala

¶54

Page 3 of 7

¶55

SRSJ W.P.No.25740 of 2020

¶56

Village of Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District was sub-divided into R.S.Nos.66/f to 66/9, R.S.Nos.66/1 to 66/4 was classified as Government Poramboke nnd R.Nos.66/5 classified as Government Dry. The land i to 66/9 was in R.S.No.66/4 is Ac.3.54 cents. Some part of the land was encroached by local people and constructed small houses, Petitioner also encroached Ac.0.10 cents and constructed a small house and has been living therein, T'he Gram Panchayat assessed the same to the house tax and allotted D.No.1-36 in RS.No.66/4. 5. T'he land of an extent of Ac. 0.79 cents in RS.No.66/2,^IS i classified as poramboke. Part of the land i in RS.No.66/2 was demarcated for pathway and a layout has been made in the remaining extent of Ac.O. 49 cents. Respondent authorities did not interfere with the encroachment made by the petitioner for an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.66/4. The agreement of sale filed by the petitioner does not create any right in favour of the petitioner Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶57

Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner contending that petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.44 cents and is in settled possession of the property.

¶58

Page 4 of 7

¶59

SRS, J W.P.No.25740 of 2020

¶60

Heard Ms.P.Kusuma, learned counsel representing Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner^and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents in the affidavit and rejoinder and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the contents in the counter affidavit.

¶62

As seen from the agreement of sale filed along with^the writ petition, the agreement of sale was executed by one Yadavalli Harinadh, son of Koteswara Rao in favour of petitioner on 23.01.2010. Schedule property in the agreement of^sale is mentioned as Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.59/1 of Bokinela Village. Possessory agreement of sale was executed on non judicial stamp of Rs. 150/-. Petitioner asserted in the affidavit that one thatched house was constructed and door number was assigned by the local authority as 1-36. Noting was pleaded in the affidavit regarding date of construction and permission^fromthe local authorit^

¶63

This court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 the of ^c' Constitution of India, normally sliall nut adjudicate disputed questions of fact as to whetlici the piupei ty in

¶64

Page 5 of 7

¶65

SRSJ W.P.No.25740 of 2020

¶66

Sy.No.59/1 or in Sy.No.66/2. It requires evidence. The possessory agreement of sale filed by the petitioner,^which is under stamped, cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose. Based on the said document which is not admissibleⁱⁿ evidence, petitioner filed the writ petition and praying^thisCourt to declare his right. In the considered opinion of^{thiscourtsuch} a course is not permissible. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is specifically mentioned that Sy.No.66/4^is consisting of Ac.3.54 cents and out of the same, petitioner encroached Ac.0.10 cents and constructed house therein.

¶67

Thus, going by the averments in the counter affidavit^there is dispute regarding petitioner’s possession over Ac.0.10^centsin Sy.No.66/4. In fact, perusal of the counter affidavit would disclose that respondents are not taking any action in respect of the land. Along with the counter affidavit of respondent^No.3, photograph was filed, would show the house of petitioner^isin Sy.No.66/4.

¶68

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, though petitioner’s document is disclosing the purchase of property in Sy.No.59/1 and the same is inadmissible, in view of^avermentin the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 3 admitting

¶69

Page 6 of 7

¶70

SRS, J W.P.No.25740 of 2020

¶71

¶72

petitioner’s possession in respect of Ac.0.10 cents in S.No. 66/4, the respondent authorities are shall not to take any coercive steps in respect of Ac.0.10 cents in possession of petitioner without following due process of law. Regarding the^claimofthe petitioner qua Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.66/4, it being a dispute question of fact requires evidence.

¶73

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of directing^the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of petitioner in respect of Ac.0-10 cents in S.No. 66/4 only. Relief sought for in respect of remaining extent is negatived.^There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

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

¶75

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶76

//TRUE COPY//

¶77

To, 1 The Principal Secretary (Revenue). State of Andhra^{Pradesh.Secretariat} Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Dist.

¶78

1. The District Collector, Krishna Dist., Machilipatnam. 3 The Tahsildhar, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist icrkhna 4. The Village Revenue Officer, Bokinala Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna 5 One CC to Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy. Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh[OU ] 7. Two C.D. Copies r.nr

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/08/2023

ORDER

WP.No.25740 of 2020

OF ANDTJJs
w
^ 2 6 MAR 2G25
. Current Section . ^

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Veerla Munaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerla Munaiah 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

Smt. D. Obulamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S T v Sampath Kumar at T Sampath Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bali Reddy Venkateswara Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D Ravi Vs State of Ap

Basheerun Khatun Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh