Disposed

Mekala Ammanni, S/o.Mekala Obul Reddy, v. The State of A.P. rep. by its

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Aug 2023WP/43427/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged eviction attempts from property in Kadapa, alleging violation of the R&NR Act and fundamental rights. The Court held respondents cannot interfere with possession without due process of law under the R&NR Act or revenue laws pending determination of petitioners' status.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioners' property without following due process under the R&NR Act or revenue laws pending status determination. No order as

Mekala Ammanni, S/o.Mekala Obul Reddy, Vs The… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 43427 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

1. Mekala Ammanni, S/o.Mekala Obul Reddy, Aged about.57 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. D.No. 4/231-1 to 4, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City, Y.S.R District.

¶10

2. L.Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Nageswara Reddy, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. D.No, 4/231-1 to 4, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City; Y.S.R District.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

1. The State of A.P. rep. by its. Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶14

' The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, rep., by its. Commissioner, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.

¶15

The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation &, Command Area DevelopMent Near Kottireddy Circle, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.

¶16

The Superintending Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to disposes petitioner's from the Buildings bearing D.Nos.4/231-1, 4/231-2, 4/231-3, 4/231-4, 4/231-5 of Nagarajupeta, Revenue Ward No.4, Kadapa City, Y.S.R District without following the due process of law as arbitrary, illegal contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disposes petitioners from the Buildings bearing D.Nos.4/231-1,4/231-2, 4/231-3, 4/231-4, 4/231-5 of Nagarajupeta, Revenue Ward No.4, Kadapa City, Y.S.R District belong to petitioners without following due process of law.

¶19

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 53847 OF 2017)

¶20

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents the respondents not to disposes petitioners from the Buildings bearing D.Nos.4/231-1.4/231-2. 4/231-3. 4/231-4. 4/231-5 of Nagarajupeta. Revenue Ward No.4. Kadapa City. Y.S.R District belong to petitioners without following due process of law. pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Between:

¶24

The State of A.P. rep. by its, Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Department. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶25

'rrigation Command Area DevelopMent Near

¶26

Kottireddy Circle. Kadapa City. Y.S.R. District.

¶27

AND

¶28

... Petitioners/Respondents

¶29

House

¶30

i^iSt ?■ D Hagarajupeta, Kadapa City, Y.S.R District.

¶31

1. L.Narasimha Reddy. S/o.Nageswara Reddy. Aged about 22 years. Occ Employee. R/o. D.No. 4/231-1 to 4. Nagarajupeta. Kadapa City; Y.S.R uisinci.

¶32

Corporation, rep., by its. Commissioner Kadapa c'iTy"^^ I .o.r. Lzioliict.

¶33

Pilv Engineer. Roads & Buildings. Maruthi Nagar. Kadapa uiiy. Y.b.R. District.

¶34

(R3 is not necessary party in this Petition) ''' < Respondent

¶35

CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed , ia support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 20-12-'2017 passed in WP.No.43427/2017 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. V R REDDY KOVVURI

¶37

AREA DEVELOp'mENt "'’®"*® 1. 3 & 4 : GP FOR IRRIGATION AND COMMAND

¶38

FOR MUNrciPAl^"CO^^PO^AWN

¶39

“

¶40

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶41

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶42

WRIT PETITION No.43427 OF 2017

¶43

ORDER:-

¶44

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶45

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶46

to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to disposes petitioners form the buildings bearing I).Nos.4/231-1, 4/231-2, 4/231-3, 4/231-4, 4/231-5 of Nagarajupeta, Revenue Ward No.4, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District without following the due process of law as arbitrary, illegal contrary to the proceedings envisaged under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disposes petitioners from the Buildings bearing D.Nos.4/231-1, 4/231-2, 4/231-3, 4/231-4, 4/231-5 of Nagarajupeta, Revenue Ward No.4, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District belong to petitioners withoutfollowing due process of law and pass such other order or orders ...”

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the house sites bearing D.Nos.4/231-1, 4/231-2, 4/231-3, 4/231-4, 4/231-5 of Nagarajupeta, Revenue Ward No.4, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District. He further submits that the petitioners got constructed residential houses after obtaining due permission from the Respondent Corporation. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While things stood thus.

¶49

NV,J W.P.No.43427 of2017 .

¶50

¶51

¶52

Respondent No.3 herein proposing to construct a containment wall initially proposed at the width of 80 mts but later the same was modified to 96 mts by which the petitioners properties are identified for said construction and the respondent authorities are trying to take away the properties of the petitioners without following due process of law as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Hence, the writ petition.

¶53

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioners are encroached into the Buggavanka Vagu Poramboku and they are not entitled for any Rights whatsoever they claimed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and on perusal of material placed before this Court, the petitioners were acquired the subject lands through Registered Sale Deeds and constructed house sites and they have been residing in the said houses. as such their properties cannot be interfered without following due process of law.

¶54

6. It is settled principles of law, even assuming the petitioners are encroachers and they are entitled for due process as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As such the respondents cannot interfere by de-horsing the procedure as contemplated under the Act.

¶55

¶56

¶57

NV.J W.P.No.43427 of20I7

¶58

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property without following due process of law as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or Revenue laws which ever is applicable after determination of the status of the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

the 9. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in writ petition, shall also stand closed.

¶60

SD/-V. SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Department, State of A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Distrir^.

¶64

1. The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa City, Y.b.K. 3 ThTsuperintending Engineer, Irrigation &, Command Area Development, Near Kottireddy Circle, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District

¶65

1. The Superintending Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District. One CC to SRI. VR REDDY KOWURI Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

5. 6. Two CCS to GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, High Court of Andhra Pradesh OUT] 7. One CC to SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [OPUC]

¶67

Two CD Copies MSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:04Z08Z2023

ORDER

WP.No.43427 of 2017

¶72

OF
3: o 0 4 DEC 2023 cz>/S)
Current Section
^’^S^SPa TCVV

¶73

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
U

Mekala Ammanni, S/o.Mekala Obul Reddy, v. The State of A.P. rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Ammanni, S/o.Mekala Obul Reddy, v. The State of A.P. rep. by its

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

Machaveerappa M I Tank Users Association Vs Sri Vangala Srinivasulu Reddy

Padmaraju M I Tank Water Users Association Vs Sri Vangala Srinivasulu Reddy

Padmaraju M I Tank Water Users Association Vs Sri Vangala Srinivasulu Reddy

V Ram Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bussa Rajendra Vs The Joint Collector

Babburi Narayana Swamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh