Disposed

Dasari Mahalakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Jul 2024WP/1333/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging arbitrary construction on the petitioner's house site. Relying on a counter undertaking to follow legal procedure, the Court declined adjudication and reiterated the interim direction stopping interference with possession.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioner's possession over the house site except under due procedure contemplated under law.

Dasari Mahalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1333 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasari Mahalakshmi, W/o Late Ramulu, Aged about 57 years, Pothampet Village, Lakavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.

¶14

District Panchayat Officer, Vizianagaram District.

¶15

The Thasildar, Lakavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram^District.

¶16

Mandal Development Officer, Lakavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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 writ order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondent No. 4

¶19

/ i 2 /■>

¶20

and 5 trying for construction of wellness centre in the house site of the petitioner in survey no-71 of pothampet village in^{anextentof0.03cents} boundaries of her land, East. Eddu thata taluka house site allotted along with her late husband, West- Denkada ramulu, North- Rikki Naryana Rao and CC road and South- cultivated lands, around sites are as it is like us without giving any notice to her, the very arbitrary^{actionsof4*^and5} th respondent interfering in her land without due process of law is contrary to the principles of natural justice and violation of article 21 of the constitution of India. Consequently declare the actions of 4'^ and 5'^ respondents are illegal and unjust.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

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 No.4 and 5 not to interfere the peaceful possession of the petitioner in survey no-71, revenue village of pothampet, boundaries of house site. East: Eddu thata taluka house site allotted along with her late husband. West: Denkada ramulu. North: Rikki Naryana Rao and CC road and South: cultivated lands, around sites are as it is like them and stop the illegal construction of wellness centre in the petitioner house site pending disposal of the Writ^Petition.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Between:

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi

¶26

2, The District Collector, Vizianagaram District

¶27

The Tahsildar, Lakavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram^District

¶28

...Petitioners/Respondents 1, 2 & 4

¶29

AND

¶30

1 Dasari Mahalakshmi, W/o. Late Ramulu, aged about 57 years, Potharopet Village, Lakavarupukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District

¶31

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶32

District Panchayat Officer, Vizianagaram District

¶33

Mandal Development Officer, Lakavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District

¶34

...Respondents/Respondents 3 and 5 that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the counter affidavit filed in support of the petition,^theHighCourt order granted on 25.01.2021 in may be pleased to vacate the interim W.P.No.1333 of 2021 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶35

; SRI K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Petitioner

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.3; GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI^(SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PANCHAYAT)

¶38

The Court made the following Order;

¶39

¶40

APHC010018342021

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶42

[3332]

¶43

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 1333/2021

Between:

Dasari Mahalakshmi

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶54

1.K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN)

¶57

2.GPFOR REVENUE

¶58

3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶59

The Court made the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent^nos.4and5are trying to construct wellness centre in her house site^{inanextentofAc.0-03} cents in Survey No.71 of Pothampet village, without giving any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under^law.

¶62

Heard Sri K.V.Satya Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Prashanthi Gude, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶63

In the counter filed by respondent no.4-Tahsildar, it has been dearly mentioned that if the house site allotted to the petitioner is required for public purpose, the possession of the same would be taken by following due procedure contemplated in law.

¶64

Highhanded interference with her house site by the respondent authorities, without following due process of law, is alleged in this writ petition. The authorities filed counter undertaking to follow due process of law, in case the house site allotted to the petitioner is required for any public purpose.

¶65

In fact, this court granted interim direction on 25.01.2021 directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject land.

¶66

In view of the contents of the counter that the authorities would follow due process of law, there remains nothing for adjudication in this writ petition and the same can be disposed of.

¶67

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property i.e. house site in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents situated in

¶68

¶69

Survey No.71 of Pothampet village, except under due procedure contemplated

¶70

under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.} Sd/- G. SRINIVAS REDDY

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi.

¶77

The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.

¶78

District Panchayat Officer, Vizianagaram District.

¶79

The Thasildar, Lakavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram^District.

¶80

Mandal Development Officer, Lakavarapukota Mandal,^Vizianagaram District.

¶81

One CO to SRI. K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO, Advocate^[OPUC]

¶82

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

¶83

One CC to SRI KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTl (SC FOR ZPP^MPPAND GRAM PANCHAYAT)

¶84

Three CD Copies

DPBR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 30/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1333 of 2021

'V
;' «
•f
o
o
2 'I FEB 2025
o
Curreni i>ecuon
£€spATC»^

¶91

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Dasari Mahalakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Mahalakshmi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jampani Siva Rama Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Potru Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N Anand Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Gangisetty, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bonda Hari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajula Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh