Disposed

Pendlimari Srinivasulu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2024WA/166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the dismissal of a writ petition regarding land allotment and possession, holding that disputed questions of fact regarding authenticity of proceedings and title must be adjudicated by an appropriate civil forum rather than in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal disposed of; parties directed to approach appropriate forum for adjudication.

Pendlimari Srinivasulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

CO(j
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH;:AMARAVA^^’v/g^ \o

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

■c‘-

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

W.A No: 166 OF 2024

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal^preferred against the order in Writ petition No. 14149 of 2019^{dt.27.03.2023.onthefile} of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Pendlimari Srinivasulu, S/o. Ramaraju, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Plot No. 11, Indiramma Colony, Kalluripalli village, Nellore^RuralMandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶12

Pendlimari Lakshmidevamma, W/o. Ramaraju, Aged about 64 years, R/o. Plot No. 10, Indiramma Colony, Kalluripalli village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶13

...APPELLANT(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Tulluru^{Mandal,Guntur} District.

¶16

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore, SPSR^{NelloreDistrict.}

¶19

Bandi Anandamma, W/o. not known. Aged about 54 years, R/o. Kapadipalem, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶20

Smt, Koneti Padmavathi, W/o. Kondaiah, Aged about years, R/o. Kalluripalli village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶21

Smt. Chitteti Chenchamma, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Kalluripalli village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone delay of 272 days in filing the appeal against the Orders passed in W.P.No.14149/2023, dt.27.03.2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective house plots 11 and 10, situated in Sy.Nos.9 and 10 of Kallurupalli village, Nellore rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the above Writ appeal.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI C. SUBODH

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:—

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents No.6, 7: SRI A. CHANDRAIH NAIDU The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

APHC010032002024

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Bench Sr.No:-1 PRADESH [3446] AT AMARAVATI

¶31

WRIT APPEAL NO: 166 of 2024

¶32

Pendlimari Srinivasulu and another.

¶33

...Appellant(s)

¶34

Vs.

¶35

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶36

...Respondent(s)

¶37

itidtiek'k’k-k'kie

¶38

C SUBODH, Advocate for Appellants.

¶39

GP FOR REVENUE (AP), Advocate for Respondent Nos.1^to4. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 &^7.

¶40

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶41

DATE : 25*'’ April, 2024

¶42

Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ (oral):

¶43

The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent^hasbeen preferred against the judgment and order, dated 27.03.2023 passed in WP.No.14149 of 2019.

¶44

The writ petitioners (appellants herein) claim to be^inpossession and enjoyment of plots bearing No. 10 & 11 situate^{inSurveyNos.9&10in} Kallurpalli Village in SPSR Nellore District. The sites^{aresaidtohavebeen}

¶45

¶46

HCJ & RRR,J WA 166 2024

¶47

allotted to the petitioners on the basis of proceedings vide RCB/529/09, dated 15.03.2012.

¶48

The grievance of the petitioners was that the unofficial respondents were interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plots in question.

¶49

The stand of the petitioners was controverted by the official respondents wherein it was stated that the proceedings dated 15.03.2012, based upon which the petitioners were claiming right and title over the plots in question, were in fact bogus and fabricated. It was stated that the plots were allotted in favour of unofficial respondents No.6 & 7 i.e., Koneti^{PadmavathiandChitteti} Chenchamma.

¶50

The learned single Judge upon considering the material^directed the petitioners to produce the original pattas which the petitioners were unable to produce at the relevant time. Based upon that, the learned single Judge proceeded to record a finding that the petitioners (appellants herein) had not approached the Court with clean hands and had created^documents for obtaining directions from the writ Court; accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are in possession of the original pattas which they can produce before this

¶52

¶53

HCJ & RRR,J WA 166 2024

¶54

Court and further urged that only because at the relevant^{timetheoriginal} pattas could not be produced for the reasons beyond the control of the appellants, was no reason to hold that the pattas were forged^{orfabricated.}

¶55

Learned counsel for the private respondents No.6 & 7 on the other hand would submit that in the earlier round of litigation, the factum regarding the allotment of pattas in favour of respondents^{No.6&7hadbeen} established.

¶56

It was stated that the private respondents No.6 & 7^hereinhad filed WP.No.14550 of 2011 when the official respondents were threatening to demolish the construction raised by private respondents^{overthehousesites} which are now claimed by the appellants to have been^{allottedtothem.} It was in that background that the learned single Judge had proceeded^to dispose^of the writ petition with a direction to the official respondents to follow the due process of law before taking any coercive action in regard^to the^plots in question.

¶57

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The response of the official respondents appears to be that the proceedings^{dated15.03.2012} based upon which the appellants claim right and title^{overthetwoplots} in question were forged and fabricated. It also appears^{thatprivaterespondents}

¶58

HCJ & RRR,J WA_166_2024

¶59

No.6 & 7 also lay a claim over the said plots which they claim were allotted to them in the year 2004.

¶60

Disputed questions arise in the present case as regards the authenticity of the proceedings dated 15.03.2012 as also the pattas which the appellants claim are in their possession.

¶61

In our opinion the right remedy with the appellants would be to approach an appropriate forum for adjudication of the issues with a view to establish their legitimate rights. However, in our opinion, it might not have been open to the learned single Judge to finally hold that the proceedings, dated 15.03.2012 were forged and fabricated only because the appellants had failed to produce the original pattas at the relevant time. It would remain open for the parties to establish the relevant facts before an appropriate forum.

¶62

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEcftoiJcOFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶70

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶71

The Tahsildar, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. One CC to SRI C. SUBODH Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One CC to SRI A. CHANDRAIH NAIDU Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

Three C.D. Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

TIME LIMIT

DATED: 25/04/2024

ORDER

WA.No.166 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WA

WITHOUT COSTS

Pendlimari Srinivasulu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pendlimari Srinivasulu 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

Sri Sri Sri Veeranjaneeya Swamy Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kucharlapati Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Akshinthala Guru Prasad Gupta

The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh