Disposed

Appala Sudhakara Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2024WP/16770/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Referred to a batch judgment disposing a similar land dispute. Directed the Mandal Surveyor to conduct a survey to determine the sub-division of the land in the petitioner's physical possession and directed respondents not to interfere until the report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Mandal Surveyor to conduct a survey to identify the sub-division in petitioner's possession; respondents directed not to interfere until report submitted.

Appala Sudhakara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010241612011

¶2

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

¶3

[ 3299 THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF ] FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 16770 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

APPALA SUDHAKARA RAO ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

¶10

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. Y V RAVI PRASAD

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: 14653/M INDRANI

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: 5739/NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

RNT, J WP No.16770 of 2011

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶19

WRIT PETITION No. 16770 of 2011

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Heard Sri G. Bhanu Sai Prasad Varma, learned counsel, representing Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Haritha, learned counsel, appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶22

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

¶23

been filed for the following reliefs:

¶24

“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the property rights of the petitioner particularly with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over Plot No.7 admeasuring 193.11 sq yards and Plot No.34 admeasuring 215.11 sq yards covered by Sy.No.140/1A situated at Pernamitta Village and Panchayat S N Padu Sub Registrar limits Prakasam District is illegal arbitrary highhanded and violative of Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and also violative of procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act 1984 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over plot No.7 admeasuring 193.11 sq yards and Plot No.34 admeasuring 215.11 sq yards covered by Sy No 140/1A situated at Pernamitta Village and Panchayat S N Padu Sub Registrar limits Prakasam District without following the prescribed under the relevant statues and to pass such other order or orders…..”

¶25

Sri G. Bhanu Sai Prasad Varma, learned counsel, appearing for the

¶26

petitioner, as also Ms. P. Haritha, learned counsel, appearing for the 5^th respondent, jointly submit that the controversy as involved in the present writ

¶27

RNT, J WP No.16770 of 2011

¶28

¶29

petition is squarely covered by the common judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions, leading one being W.P.No.16763 of 2011, decided on 10.01.2024. They submit that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms thereof. The land involved in the present case is also situated in the same survey number but to different extent.

¶30

Learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submits referring to the counter affidavit that there is dispute whether the lands claimed by the petitioner falls under Sy.No.140/1A situated at Pernamitta Village and Panchayat, S.N.Padu Sub-Registrar limits Prakasam District or in original Sy.No.140, that the same dispute as was involved in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions.

¶31

The batch of writ petitions leading one being W.P.No.16763 of 2011 was disposed of with the following directions:

¶32

“12. In view of the same, as there is a dispute whether the lands claimed by the petitioners falls under the Sy.No.140/1A or Sy.No.140/2A. However, as per the Sub-divisions made in Sy.No.140 of Pernamitta village, the land to an extent of Acs.11.72½ cents is a patta land which falls in Sy.No.140/2A. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petitions by directing the Mandal Surveyor, Pernamitta Village to conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioners by duly giving a notice to them and submit a report as to which sub-division of Sy.No.140 of Pernamitta Village is in the physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, till then the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the subject land.

¶33

RNT, J WP No.16770 of 2011

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, with the above direction these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶36

Accordingly, the present writ petition is also being disposed with the

¶37

same directions to the Mandal Surveyor, Pernamitta Village to conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioner by duly giving a notice to him and submit a report as to which sub-division of Sy.No.140 of Pernamitta Village is in the physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioner herein. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, till then the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject land. No order as to costs.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶39

consequence.

¶40

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶41

Date: 15.02.2024 Dsr

Appala Sudhakara Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appala Sudhakara Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mummidi Koteswara Rao, Vs Kothani Veera Venkata Satya Appa Rao

Goturi Radha, Chittoor District and 3 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Stamps and Registration Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Anne Sivarama Prasad, Krishna Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others

A.S.Gurappa, Vs The Sub Registrar

Suthapalli Lakshmi Narayana Rao Vs Yeluripati Surya Kumari

Suthapalli Lakshmi Narayana Rao Vs Yeluripati Surya Kumari