Disposed

Mane Eranna, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2023WP/6513/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the issuance of house site pattas on land allotted to the Textile Department. Finding the land had been resumed by the Collector and District Magistrate due to non-establishment of the park, the Court held the petition a non est and disposed of the case without examining the resumption order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mane Eranna, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.6513 OF 2020

¶2

Between:

¶3

Mone Eranna S/o M.Adeppa, Aged about 42 years, Weaver, H.No.9-1477/16/1, Shanti Nagar, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District and four others.

¶4

… Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, represented by its Principal Secretary and four others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 : GP for Revenue

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶11

“…issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in trying to issue house site pattas under „Navaratnalu – Pedalandari Illur Pragramme‟ in the land in Sy.No.343 and 344 to an extent of Ac.91.31 cents situated at Banavasi Village and Farm, Yemmiganur, Kurnool

¶12

Page 2 of 6

¶13

SRS, J W.P.No.6513 of 2020

¶14

District, which is allotted for establishment of Textile Park vide G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 16.04.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to issue site pattas in the land in Sy.No.343 and 344 to an extent of Ac.91.31 cents situated at Banavasi Village and Farm, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, which is allotted for establishment of Textile Park vide G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 16.04.2016 and pass such other order or orders…”

¶15

Averments in affidavit, in brief, are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.151, Revenue (Assignment.V) Department, dated 16.04.2016, by allotting Ac.91.31 cents in Sy.Nos.343 and 344 etc., in Banavasi Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District, in favour of department of Handlooms & Textiles for establishment of Textile Park. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are wavers. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are making attempts to issue house site pattas in the land allotted for establishment of Textile Park. Assailing the same, petitioners filed the above writ petition.

¶16

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.5. It was contended, inter-alia , that even after allotment of Ac.91.31 cents in Sy.Nos.343 & 344 in Banavasi Village, in favour of Handlooms & Textiles for establishment of Textile Park, the

¶17

Page 3 of 6

¶18

SRS, J W.P.No.6513 of 2020

¶19

Textile Park was not established. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool by proceedings in Rc.No.E1/161/2020, dated 25.02.2020, passed order of resumption, since the Handloom and Textiles Department failed to establish the Textile Park, within a period of three years from the date of allotment and violated the conditions of allotment of land. Further directed the Tahsildar, Yemmiganur Mandal, to take over the possession of resumed land.

¶20

The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, also filed counter affidavit. It was contended about the allotment of lands in Sy.Nos.343, 344, 345, 346/1, 346/3, 347, 348, 349 for an extent of Ac.91.31 cents in favour of Handloom and Textile Department for establishment of Textile Park. Since, the Textile Park was not established within the stipulated time, the land was resumed for providing house sites for eligible beneficiaries. The copy of resumption proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, was filed along with the counter affidavit of the Tahsildar.

¶21

Page 4 of 6

¶22

SRS, J W.P.No.6513 of 2020

¶23

Heard Sri B.Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5.

¶24

Petitioners five in number, claiming the status as weavers, filed the above writ petition. As per G.O.Ms.No.151, Revenue (Assignment.V) Department, dated 16.04.2016, the land of an extent of Ac.91.31 cents in Sy.Nos.343, 344 etc., was allotted for establishment of Textile Park in favour of Handloom and Textiles Department at free of cost. However, the park was not established. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool by proceedings Rc.No.E1/161/2020, dated 25.02.2020, ordered resumption and directed the Tahsildar, Yemmiganur Mandal, to take over the possession of the land.

¶25

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that pursuant to the order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, Tahsildar, Yemmiganur Mandal, taken possession of the property referred to supra .

¶26

Since the land referred to supra was resumed, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to

¶27

Page 5 of 6

¶28

SRS, J W.P.No.6513 of 2020

¶29

challenge the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool vide Rc.No.E1/161/2020, dated 25.02.2020, if they aggrieved. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶31

stand dismissed.

¶32

________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶33

Date : 12.09.2023 TVN

¶34

Page 6 of 6

¶35

SRS, J W.P.No.6513 of 2020

¶36

¶37

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.6513 OF 2020

¶39

Date : 12.09.2023 TVN

Mane Eranna, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mane Eranna, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janjanam Venkateswara Rao Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Devishetti Krishnaperumallu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.Namburi Sri Rama Chandra Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gejja Nagaiah Vs the State of Ap

Boya Chenna Keshavulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Basha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh