Dismissed

Talari Chengamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Oct 2023WP/28391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged interference with her agricultural land by revenue authorities. The court found no active interference based on written instructions and dismissed the petition while directing that future actions must follow due legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed not to interfere with the petitioner's agricultural land except under due process of law.

Talari Chengamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.28391 OF 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…. to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declare the acts of the Respondents and their authorities i.e., interfere in petitioner’s possession and enjoyment in petitioner agricultural lands an extent of A.C. 0.63 cents in Sy.No.247/2 situated in ChuttauntaRamapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandalam, Chittoor District, now in Tirupati District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of Andhra Pradesh Right in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and violation of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act, 1977 and violation of the Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently Direct the Respondents No.3 and their authorities not to interfere in petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s agricultural land and pass…. ”

¶6

The short grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ

¶7

Petition is that, the respondent authorities are highhandedly

¶8

RC, J W.P.No.28391 of 2023

¶9

¶10

attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following the procedure contemplated under law.

¶11

Heard Sri C.Leela Srinivasa Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rizwan Ali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

¶12

Sri C.Leela Srinivasa Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the Revenue Authorities have issued DKT Patta in favour of the petitioner’s husband. Now the petitioner is residing in the said land and the authorities, without any manner of right are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due procedure under law and if the said action is materialized, the petitioner will be shelterless and the petitioner’s livelihood will be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶13

On the other hand, Sri Rizwan Ali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions dated 29.10.2023, which is placed on record, contended that, the authorities are not interfering with the above said land, as

¶14

3 RC, J W.P.No.28391 of 2023

¶15

such, there is nothing for adjudication and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶16

In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the said written instructions dated 29.10.2023, may be recorded and prayed to dispose of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Perused the material available on record.

¶18

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the written instructions dated 29.10.2023, which shows that, the respondent authorities are not trying to dispossess the petitioner from the

¶19

subject property and are not interfering with the petitioner’s subject property. In view of the same, there is nothing for adjudication in the present Writ Petition. However, in the event if the respondent authorities have any intention to interfere with the subject property, it is needless to say that they have to follow due procedure contemplated under law.

¶20

In these circumstances, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order:

¶21

The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere

¶22

with the petitioner’s agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.63

¶23

4 RC, J W.P.No.28391 of 2023

¶24

cents in Sy.No.247/2 situated in ChuttauntaTamapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandalam, Chittoor District, now in Tirupati District, except under due process of law.

¶25

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

¶26

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶28

30^th October, 2023 TJN

Talari Chengamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talari Chengamma 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

Mr. Bellam Ravichandra, Vs Union Bank of India

Thomandru Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N Sada Siva Vs The State of Andra Pradesh

Akkineni Rajeswari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddi Uma Rani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kethireddy Saraswathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh