Disposed

B Narasimhulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jan 2024WA/1218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging attempted dispossession from government land, where a civil suit over the same plot was pending. The State undertook to follow due process; the court disposed of the appeal directing that the appellant be heard before eviction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed: any eviction proceedings against appellant must afford him a hearing and result in a speaking order; no costs.

B Narasimhulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY. THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR i
CCa- US mm
PRESENT '
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTIC^
Ny

¶4

AND

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1218 OF 2023

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to preferred against the order dated 02.11.2023 in WP No. 28602 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Narasimhulu, S/o Late Devara Lingappa, Aged about 50 years, R/o Pedda kodipalli Village, Roddam mandal, Sri Satya Sai^District.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Collector, Penukonda, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶15

The Tahsildhar, Roddam Mandal, Sri Satya Sai Dist.

¶16

Gauti Srinivasulu, S/o. late G. Siddappa Aged about 45 yrs, Occ APSRTC Driver

¶17

Gauti Kristappa, S/o. late G. Siddappa, Aged about 35 yrs, Respondents 5 to 6 are resident of Peddakodipalli Village, Roddam Mandal, Sri Satya Sai district.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

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 2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the house plot being an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No. 461 situated at Pedakodipalli Village, Rudam Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District pending disposal of the main writ Appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NARASIMHULU PARISE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

HCJfrRRR, J W.A.No.l218of2023

¶23

¶24

Dt.:23.01.2024

¶25

PerDHIRAJSINGHTHAKUR, CJ (Oral):

¶26

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 passed in W.P. No.28602 of 2023.

¶27

It appears that the petitioner claims to be in possession^ofa plot of land admeasuring Ac.0-03 cents in Sy.No.461^situatedin PedakodipaUi Village in Sri Satya Sai District. Earher, the petitioner appears to have also filed a civil suit which is stiU pending before the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda being Original Suit No.355 of 2022. This was a civil suit in which the petitioner sought permanent prohibitory injunction against the private respondents. It also appears that the interim apphcation filed by the petitioner/plaintiff^hassincebeen dismissed. In the second round of htigation, the petitioner preferred the writ petition wherein it was claimed that the official respondents being respondent Nos.2 to 4 were trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, which is admittedly state land. It is stated that the dispossession of the petitioner^iswithout adopting the due procedure of law, which is arbitrary, and therefore, sought an appropriate direction before the writ Court. The writ petition has been dismissed by virtue of the judgment and

¶28

HCJ&RRR, J W.A. No.1218 of2023

¶29

¶30

order impugned primarily on the ground that a civil suit had already been filed and was pending before the civil Court and therefore, the writ proceedings were not maintainable.

¶31

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appeUant that the learned Single Judge committed error in not appreciating^thefact that the State was not at all a party defendant in the civil suit filed and pending before the civil Court.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, stated that the entire basis for laying a claim over the land in question belonging to the State was based upon a forged document namely Possession Certificate’ allegedly issued by the then Tahsildar, which according to the learned counsel was never issued. In any case, it is stated that the eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellant by affording to the appellant an opportunity of being heard and adopting the due course of law.

¶33

In that view of the statement being made, the appeal is disposed of with a direction that in case any eviction proceedings are initiated against the appellant, the appellant should be heard in the matter and a speaking order passed in that regard. No order as to costs.

¶34

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.l218of2023

¶35

¶36

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed. SOI- V DIWAKAR

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/C.

■'•*1

SEdrtON OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶44

The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶45

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Collector, Penukonda,^SriSatya

¶46

Sai District.

¶47

The Tahsildhar, Roddam Mandal, Sri Satya Sai Dist.

¶48

One CC to Sri Narasimhulu Parise, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶50

Three CD Copies.

Ssb

MBT

Ma.'giv'jiiia

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23/01/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.1218of2023

/far o
Ho 0 I MAY 2U;!‘i m.
CoS,

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

B Narasimhulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Narasimhulu v. 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

Sade Naga Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Runkana Nagabhushana Rao Vs the State of Ap

Hanuma Ayyappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Pereira English Noble School Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ll (Compliance)

P Hari Preeth Vs the State of Ap

Mallu Jayaramireddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh