Disposed

Sri Kodanda Ramalayam Setti Balija Sankshema Sangam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023WP/30247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice demanding removal of a community shed. The Court held the action was untenable without a show-cause notice but instead directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply within four weeks while staying coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's reply within 4 weeks; coercive steps against property stayed till such time.

Sri Kodanda Ramalayam Setti Balija Sankshema… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30247 OF 2023

¶8

Between: 1.

¶9

¶10

Years, Treasurer,R/o Jalli

¶11

Kakinada Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, Prakasam District

¶12

¶13

year. Cultivation.RZo Jalli ...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

Principal Secretary to Government.

¶15

Sntur d TsM Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,

¶16

2. Jalli Kakinada Grama Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Authority-cumG?Savli?Dfetrid*®'^’ ^'*'^9®’ Ganapavaram Mandal.West

¶17

3. Nandiah.Aged 50 years, Cultivation,R/o Jalli

¶18

Kakinada Village.Ganapavaram Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be .7®®®®^_^? ‘®®^e a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly 2'^^ respondenj at the instance of the 3^“ respondent in insisting the petitioner to remove 1 petitioner's office premises situated in an extent of 24 Sq. yards covered by S.No. 82-1B of Jalli Kakinada Revenue Village of Ganapavaram Godavari District and also an order in the form of notice dated 19/10.2023 issued to that effect, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly 2"^^ respondent not to interfere in any manner with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petitioner's said shed and site property.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

ui^der Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in he affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order issued in the form of notice dated 19.10.2023 by the 2""' respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any

¶23

manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1®‘ petitioner society over the said shed and site property situated in an extent of 24 Sq. yards covered by S.No. 82-1B of Jalli Kakinada Revenue Village of Ganapavaram Mandal in West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI G VENKAT REDDY, SC FOR ZPP MPP & GP

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : NONE APPEARED

¶27

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶28

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.30247 of 2023

¶32

Between

¶33

Sri Kodanda Ramalayam Setti Balija Sankshema Sangam and three others

¶34

Petitioners

¶35

And

¶36

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and two others.

¶37

.... Respondents

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Gajjala Venkata Reddy, Standing counsel for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2"'’ respondent. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of, at the stage of admission.

¶42

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly the 2^^^ respondent, in insisting the petitioners to remove the pt petitioner’s office

¶43

¶44

premises situated in an extent of 24 sq.yards, covered by S.NO.82-1B of Jalii Kakinada Revenue Village of Ganapavaram Mandal, vide Notice dated 19.10.2023 was illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction etc.. and for consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the 1st petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Her main contention is that though a community shed was built in the above mentioned area, which is a Grama Kantam land, the 2nd respondent, at the behest of the S^d respondent, is resorting to highhanded action of demolishing the same without following the due procedure contemplated under law. She submits that though the 2nd respondent issued Notice, dated 17.10.2023, it is in fact in the form of an order, whereby the pt petitioner was granted three days time for vacating the subject matter property. She submits that without a proper notice. muchless a show cause notice was issued to the pt petitioner and therefore, the impugned notice and proposed action

«-

I I

mentioned therein are not legally sustainable. She also submits that in fact the petitioners submitted explanation to the impugned notice on 26.10.2023, but the 2nd respondent, without considering the same, is taking further steps to demolish the subject matter property and to disposes the petitioners therefrom. 4) Though the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent seeks time to secure instructions in the matter, from a reading of the proceedings / notice impugned in the Writ Petition it would appear the same was not preceded by any show cause notice. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned notice contains the directions, which are in the nature of an order. The actions. which are to be initiated under the impugned notice without affording an opportunity to the petitioners, are not tenable in law. Though the notice is liable to be set aside on that ground, taking into consideration that the petitioners had already submitted a reply dated 26.10.2023 to the impugned notice, this Court instead of setting aside the impugned notice, deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the 2"^ respondent to consider the reply of

the petitioners dated 26.10.2023 to the Notice, dated 19.10.2023, and pass appropriate orders in aceordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the 1st petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, no coercive steps in respect of the subject matter property shall be resorted to.

¶54

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No' costs. 6) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending. if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶55

Sd/- K TATARAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTlC ii^To Sicer
To,
1. The Principal Secretary to Government. Panchayat Raj and Rural
Development State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
Guntur District.
2. The Executive Authority-cum-Panchayat Secretary, Jalli Kakinada Grama
D^sMct^y^^’ Village, Ganapavaram Mandal.West Godavari
3. One CO to M/S. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUCl
4. Two CCs to GP for PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. [OUTj
5. One CO to SRI G VENKAT REDDY, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GP lOPUCl
6. Three CD Copies
Madhu
/l,VVl!^

¶56

HIGH COURT

¶57

DATED:21/1 1/2023

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.30247 of 2023

¶60

0« DEC 2023 W
□co
®7.
Current VUMCl.l Section
^'^SSss^SPATCV'

¶61

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Sri Kodanda Ramalayam Setti Balija Sankshema Sangam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kodanda Ramalayam Setti Balija Sankshema Sangam, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yelamanchili Sandhya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Shakir Basha, Vs Prl.Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of A.P.

Nannapuneni Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Marella Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Ap

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koda Polaiah Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank