Allowed

Suvvada Narayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jul 2024WP/14590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order declaring the petitioner an encroacher. Finding that the issuing authority failed to consider the petitioner's explanation before passing the order, the Court set aside the proceedings and directed a fresh opportunity of hearing within four months.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings RC No. 1-2/2024 set aside; petitioner directed to submit explanation afresh; respondents directed to consider the same and pass reasoned orders within four months.

Suvvada Narayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

; 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14590 OF 2024

¶8

Between;

¶9

Suvvada Narayana, S/o Venkata swamy, Aged about 52 years, Agriculturist, R/o Door No. 26-14-71/1, Velampeta, One Town Area, Visakhapatnam District, AP.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal secretary Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vishakhapatnam, Vishakhapatnam District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Vishakhapatnam.

¶15

The Executive Officer, Endowment Department Sri. Langharkhan Choultry Bheemunipatnam, Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 more particularly respondent No.4 who issued the impugned proceedings vide RC No. 1-2/2024 Date 28.06.2024, by addressing me as ENCROACHER under Sec 83 of Endowment Act 30/1987 R/W Amended Act 36 of 2023 and further directed me to vacate the property which I have purchased by way of registered Sale Deed vide document No. 2627 of 2022 Dated 27/05/2022 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to the fundamental principles and enshrined in the constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property^which is an extent of 176Sq.Yards, in survey No. 18 (Town survey No. 19) of Ward No. 18, Block No.2 of Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam District.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 suspend the proceedings issued by Respondent^No.4videRC No. 1-2/2024 Dated 28.06.2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in to the shed constructed by the petitioner in an extent of 176Sq.Yads, Survey No.18 (Town survey No. 19) of Ward No.18,Block No.2 of Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No’s 1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B JAGADEESH KUMAR,^SCFOR ENDOWMENTS

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶25

APHC010290532024

¶26

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

¶27

[3310]

¶28

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14590/2024

¶30

Between:

¶31

Suvvada Narayana ...PETITIONER

¶32

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

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶37

The Court made the following order:

¶38

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226^ofthe

¶39

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶40

“...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No. 4 who issued the impugned proceedings vide RC No. 1-2/2024 Date 28.06.2024, by addressing the petitioner as ENCROACHER under Sec 83 of Endowment Act 30/1987 R/W Amended Act 36 of 2023 and further directed the petitioner to vacate the property which purchased by way of registered Sale Deed vide document No. 2627 of 2022 Dated 27/05/2022 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to the fundamental principles and enshrined In the constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere^with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property which Is an extent of 176Sq.Yards, In survey No. 18 (Town survey No. 19) of Ward No. 18, Block No.2 of Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District...”

¶41

¶42

Heard Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in an extent of 176 square yards in survey No.18(Town Survey No.19) of Ward No.18, Block No.2 of Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, which is purchased under registered^sale deed document bearing No.2627/2022 for a valid sale consideration from Pachipala Sridevi and the subject property is purely a private land and since the date of purchase, the petitioner is paying tax regularly. When the bore works are going into the subject property by the petitioner, some unknown persons trespassed into property and abused him in filthy language and also filed a suit in O.S.No.376 of 2023 on the^file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner and others. Even after filing the suit, they did not get any injunction orders against the petitioner.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit^that as the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam did not take any action on the said trespass, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4135 of 2024 and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner^withinthe

¶45

¶46

¶47

stipulated time. Thereafter, the 4^^ respondent issued notice, dated 17.05.2024 under Section 83(2) of the Act 30 of 1987 stating that as per Section 43 of the Act, the subject^propertywas registered with the subject institution and to submit^{explanationby} the petitioner. The petitioner herein submitted explanation^tothe said notice but without considering the same, the 4*'^ respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 28.06.2024 addressing the petitioner as ENCROACHER under Sec 83 of Endowment^Act 30/1987 RA/V Amended Act 36 of 2023 and further directed^the petitioner to vacate the subject property, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

¶48

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments has placed the written instructions, dated 11.07.2024,^ofthe2 nd respondent, wherein it is stated that following the^amendedActas per Section 83(2), a notice was issued to the petitioner^toremove the encroachments in Sy.No.18 (old Survey No.35/2) of Bheemunipatnam Village. As per the proviso to Section^83(2),the petitioner shall be entitled to submit reply/explanation to such notice within one week from the date of receipt of^{suchnoticeand} thereupon the same shall be duly considered and appropriate orders should be passed by the Executive Officer as^mentioned therein and the petitioner has to approach the A.P.^Endowments Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 83(6).

¶49

¶50

On perusal of the record, it appears that the 4 fh respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, dated 28.06.2024 without consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and not in accordance with law and the impugned action is a patent violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the matter is liable to be sent back to the respondents 2 and 4 for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶51

For the aforesaid reason, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.1-2/2024, dated 28.06.2024, of the 4'^ respondent and it is further directed the petitioner to submit explanation afresh to the notice, dated 17.05.2024 issued by the 4‘^ respondent and on receipt of the said explanation, the respondents 2 and 4 are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶54

To,

¶55

SE ON OFFICER

¶56

The Principal secretary Endowment Department, State Of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶57

¶58

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Vishakhapatnam, Vishakhapatnam District.

¶59

The Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Vishakhapatnam.

¶60

The Executive Officer, Endowment Department Sri. Langharkhan Choultry Bheemunipatnam, Town and Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶61

One CC to SRI. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SRI. B JAGADEESH KUMAR, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS [OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, Fligh Court Of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

8. Three CD Copies

PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED; 16/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.14590 of 2024

ALLOWING THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS

Suvvada Narayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvvada Narayana 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

Evershine Monuments Vs the State of Ap

Konuru Jeevana Sandhya Mutually Aided Co- Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Lakshmi Balaji Mines and Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dulipalla Nageswara Rao, Guntur Dist., and 3 Otrs. Vs the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Mittanosala Bharatha Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sakhamuri Nagendram and 4 Others Vs Sri Ura Cheruvu Cheruvu Endowment, and 7 Others