Disposed

Dara Rambabu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2024WP/11145/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the disposal of government poramboke land for housing. Indicating that petition rights were unestablished, the Court directed the Revenue Department to consider the petitioners' claims in the ongoing enquiry while dismissing the writ challenge against the scheme itself.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Respondent No. 4 directed to consider petitioners' cases in the housing welfare scheme enquiry if eligible; Interim orders deemed vacated.

Dara Rambabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11145 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dara Rambabu, S/o Bulliyya, aged 42years R/o 6-145 Dosakayalapalli Korukonda mandal, East Godavari district

¶9

Parka Kishore Kumar, S/o. Chittabbai, aged 56years, R/o 6-113 Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda mandal. East Godavari district.

¶10

Sannapu Prasad, S/o Apparao, aged 54 years, R/o 6-62 Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda mandal. East Godavari district.

¶11

Sannapu Chinna Surya Rao, S/o Apparao aged 53 years,^R/o6-151/A Dosakayapal Korukonda mandal, East Godavari district.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶15

The District Collector, East Godavari District at^Kakinada.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO, Rajamahendravaram^East Godavari District. Scanned with CamScanner

¶17

The Tahsildar, Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda East^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to assign the property in survey No.333 and 334 of Dosakayalapalli village, Korukonda mandal. East Godavari district, which is classified as Gramakantam, by dispossessing the petitioners from

¶20

¶21

their respective piece of house sites around 200 sq yards as illegal, , .arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the »< , ^settled principle of law consequently directing the respondents not to , /. * Vicreate^ird party rights and continue the petitioners in their possession of rjjtspective piece of property is the said survey number.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶23

Between:

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶25

The District Collector, East Godavari District at^Kakinada.

¶26

The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO, Rajamahendravaram^East Godavari District. Scanned with CamScanner

¶27

The Tahsildar, Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda East^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶28

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

AND

¶30

Dara Rambabu, S/o Bulliyya, aged 42years R/o 6-145 Dosakayalapalli Korukonda mandal. East Godavari district

¶31

Parka Kishore Kumar, S/o. Chittabbai, aged 56years, R/o 6-113 Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda mandal. East Godavari district,

¶32

Sannapu Prasad, Sb Apparao aged 54 yeras, R/o 6-62 Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda mandal, East Godavari district.

¶33

Sannapu Chinna Surya Rao, S/o Apparao. aged 53 years,^R/o6-151/A Dosakayapal Korukonda mandal, East Godavari district.

¶34

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶35

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 orders dated 09-07-2020^{inWP.No.11145of} 2020 and dismiss the above writ petition.

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

¶38

!>**

¶39

High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossesses the petitioners from their respective piece of site around 200 sq.yds in survey no.333 & 334 of Dosakayalapalli village, Korukonda mandal, East Godavari district including proposed assignment to the third parties in the said land.

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T V S PRABHAKARA RAO

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for REVENUE

¶42

The Court made the following: ORDER

[3233]

r V

APHC010175482020

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

¶47

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶48

PRESENT

¶49

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶50

WRIT PETITION NO: 11145/2020

¶51

Between:

¶52

Dara Rambabu and Others

¶53

...PETITIONER(S)

¶54

AND

¶55

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S);

¶56

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶57

1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶59

1.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 3. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶60

ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶61

The Court made the following:

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the^learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶63

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in proposing to dispossess the petitioners from their

¶64

¶65

respective extents of the house sites of 200 Sq. Yards each in Sy.No.333 & 334 of Dosakayalapalli village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, without following due process of law.

¶66

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of 200 Sq. Yards each in Sy.No.333 & 334 of Dosakayalapalli village, Korukonda Mandal , East Godavari District, which is classified as “Gramakantam land. But the petitioners are not the assignees at any point of time, and the family members have also partition in the said Government land/ Government Poramboke under the partition deed document No.272 of 2020 dated 24.01.2020 in respect of Sy.No.333 of Dosakayalapalli village. There is another partition deed dated 27.01.2020 between the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 with respect to the Sy.No.333 and another document dated 21.06.2010 with respect to the Sy.No.334 in favour of the petitioner No. 1.

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that now the 4th respondent is proposing to distribute the house sites i __n Sy.No.333 and 334 Dosakayalapalli village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District and if so, their plots, as stated supra, would be affected. He also submits that there is a layout prepared in the year 2009 dated 07.01.2009 for an extent of Ac.3.60 cents in Rs.No.333 of Dosakayalapalli village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District,

¶68

% A r

¶69

¶70

but the same was not implemented and the respondents are now proceeding with the issuance of house site pattas in the abovementioned survey numbers.

¶71

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, relying upon the counter affidavit of the 4* respondent,^submitsthat the Survey No.333 is a vacant land classified as Government Poramboke. Out of Ac.3.60 cents, an extent of Ac.0.22^centsofland was allotted for forming the road by Panchayat Raj and in the remaining Ac.3.38 cents, earlier there was a "Harijana^Wada,"which was gutted with fire accident. Thereby, the said colony people were shifted to the different plots or house sites situated in Sy.No.327, 328/1, 328/2 & 328/3 by giving house site pattas at^thatpointof time only. Thus, the victims were suitably replaced with another house sites. Soon after the above-mentioned fire accident occurred. the Sy.No.333 became vacant and it is vested with the^Government under the classification of Government Poramboke. In so far as Sy.No.334 is also concerned as per the RSR, it is “Inam Dry” land and the petitioners are not in possession of any extent^of landⁱⁿ Sy.No.333 and 334 of the said village. Hence, they can’t stall^theissuance of house-site pattas. Now, under the welfare scheme of the government, if the petitioners are also entitled, their cases will^{alsobeconsidered} under the present scheme.

¶72

¶73

¶74

G. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 4^^^ respondent issued a notice dated 14.03.2023 calling on the petitioners to conduct a survey for the subject extent of plots of 200 Sq. Yards each, as claimed by the petitioners in Sy.No.333 and 334 of the said village.^Butthere is no progress thereafter in view of the pendency of this^{WritPetition.}

¶75

In the light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances,^itis to be seen that, admittedly, the subject land is government poramboke, either the petitioners or their purchasers have not been assigned any piece of the land and the Revenue Records did not disclose their lands in respect of their possession of the same. However, the sole reliance is placed by the petitioners on the documents got executed among the family members only with respect to the government Proamboke land claiming 200 Sq. Yards^each in Sy.No.333 and 334 of the said village. 8. Now that the respondents are proposing to proceed with the distribution of house sites in the above-mentioned survey numbers of the land to an extent of Ac.3.16 cents by forming the necessary road and they are also proposing to distribute the same to the eligible beneficiaries under the said scheme. The same cannot be stalled in the absence of rights established by the parties with respect to their title and possession of the same.

However, as the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 14.03.2023, the said enquiry can go on by following^thedue procedure, and the petitioners can participate in the said enquiry to establish their claim, if any.

¶81

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.4 to consider the case of the petitioners if they are otherwise eligible for the house sites under the housing welfare scheme of the State. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated.

¶82

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/- K L P AVAN I

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER

¶87

To,

¶88

The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State^ofAndhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District

¶89

The District Collector, East Godavari District at^Kakinada.

¶90

The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO, Rajamahendravaram^East Godavari District

¶91

The Tahsildar, Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda, East^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶92

One CC to SRI T V S PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶93

Two CCS to GP for REVENUE, High Court of AP (OUT)

¶94

Three CD Copies

MVS

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/03/2024

X 01| IAN 2025 I ^ . CurrentCurrent SectionSection

¶99

ORDER

¶100

WP.No.11145 of 2020

¶101

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COST

Dara Rambabu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dara Rambabu 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

K Sundari Vs the State of Ap

Sri Andhra Rastriya Aadhisaiva (Archaka) Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchibotla Harsha Vardhana Sastry Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Voodi Atchiyamma Vs the State of Ap

Miriyala Venkateswararao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.T.Neelavathamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh