Disposed

Uggina Bulli Babu, S/o. Late Chittodu (Died) v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Nov 2024WP/11063/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging dispossession of agricultural land claimed as temple property. The Court directed respondents not to take coercive steps against petitioners but to follow due process of law, allowing disposal of the matter without detailed adjudication of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to take coercive steps or interfere with petitioners' possession; to follow due process of law.

Uggina Bulli Babu, S/o. Late Chittodu (Died) Vs… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11063 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Uggina Bulli Babu, S/o. Late Chittodu (DIED), Marrivalasa, K. Kotapadu mandaim Visakhapatnam District.

¶10

Uggina Sanyasamma W/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 73 years. Door No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District.

¶11

Uggina Ramana S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 57 years Door No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District.

¶12

Uggina Satyam S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 54 years Door No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District

¶13

Uggina Suryanarayana S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 52 years Door No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District

¶14

Uggina Chittodu S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 48 years Door No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli District Petitioners (Petitioner 2 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole petitioner as per the CO dt.22.10.2024 vide orders passed in lA No.01 of 2024.)

¶15

...Petitioners

¶16

AND

¶17

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Vara Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam Rep. by its Executive Officer Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶19

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. /

¶21

The Tahsildar, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶22

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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in dispossessing the petitioner from the agriculture lands situated in Survey No. 57 part admeasuring Ac. 3.04 cents and in Sy No. 56 admeasuring Ac.0.35 cents of Marrivalasa Village, K.Kotapadu mandalam Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the petitioner nor not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property.

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013fWPMP. NO: 13692 OF 2013^

¶24

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 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment nor dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands situated in Survey No. 57 part admeasring^Ac.3.04cents and in Sy. No. 56 admeasring Ac. 0.35 cents of Marrivalasa Village, K.Kotapad Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the above main writ petition.

¶25

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWVMP. NO: 3781 OF 20161

¶26

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam.

¶27

¶28

The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam,^{Visakhapatnam} District.

¶29

The Tahsildar, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶30

...Petitioners/Respo ndent No. 3,4&5

¶31

Uggina Bulli Babu, S/o. Late Chittodu (DIED), Marrivalasa,^K.Kotapadu mandaim Visakhapatnam District.

¶32

Uggina Sanyasamma W/o Late Bullibabu, aged about^73years.Door No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District.

¶33

Uggina Ramana S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 57^{yearsDoorNo.5-3,} Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District.

¶34

Uggina Satyam S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 54^{yearsDoorNo.5-3,} Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District

¶35

Uggina Suryanarayana S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about^52yearsDoor No.5-3, Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^District

¶36

Uggina Chittodu S/o Late Bullibabu, aged about 48^{yearsDoorNo.5-3,} Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Anakapalli^{DistrictPetitioners}

¶37

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶38

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^Secretary, Endowments Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶39

The Vara Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam,^Simhachalam Rep. by its Executive Officer Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶40

...Respondents

¶41

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 vacate the interim order granted on 12-4-2013 in WPMP No. 13692 of 2013 in WP.No.11063 of 2013.

¶42

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI N V S PRASADA VARMA, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶47

¶48

The Court made the following order:

¶49

APHC010068772013

¶50

0lii0

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶52

[3310]

¶53

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO: 11063 OF 2013

¶57

Between:

¶58

Uggina Bulli Babu, S/o. Late Chittodu (died) and Others

¶59

...PETITIONER(S)

¶60

AND

¶61

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶62

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner(S);

¶64

1.B CHANDRA SHEKHAR

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶66

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

4.NVS PRASADA VARMA

The Court made the following:

¶71

ORDER:-

¶72

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia,}

¶73

seeking the following relief;

¶74

“ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the aOti&B of the respondents 2 to 5 in

¶75

Writ of mandamus declaring from the agriculture lands situated in Sy.No.57

¶76

dispossessing the petitioner

¶77

¶78

part admeasuring Ac. 3.04 cents and, in Sy.No.56 admeasuring Ac. 0.35 cents of Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal. Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein npt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the petitioner nor not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property and pass such other orders

¶79

¶80

Heard Mr. B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.V.S.Prasada Varma learned Standing Counsel for the Endowments for the respondents.

¶81

Learned counsel for the nd petitioners would contend that the 2 respondent with the help of respondents 3 to 5 is interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the property to an extent of Ac. 3.04 cents in Sy.No.57 and Ac. 0.35 cents in Sy.No.56 claiming that the subject land is a temple land, which has been gifted by the then Rahas/ Rurals. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶82

Though the petitioner made several allegations in the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition the truth or otherwise in those allegations need not be adjudicated by this Court, in view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the respondent authorities will follow due process of law.

¶83

It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly as held in Rame Gowda (D) By^Lrs vs M. Varadappa

¶84

/ /

¶85

Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr\ Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar^{Pradesh^and}

¶86

Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration^, the Supreme Court^{heldasfollows:-}

¶87

“...to forcibly dispossess citizens of their private property, without following the due process of law, would be to violate^ahuman right, as also the constitutional right under Article^300A of the Constitution. ”

¶88

Recording submission of the learned Standing Counsel for respondents as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject property, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners, except by due process of law.

¶89

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance^{withlaw.Thereshallbe} no order as to costs.

¶90

As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶91

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRyi^R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,