Disposed

Botsa Padma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 May 2024WP/1931/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and a miscellaneous petition regarding the alleged legal dispossession of petitioners from house site patta land by the State of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department.

What did the court decide?

The interim order directing respondents not to take coercive action without following due process was made absolute; the writ and miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

Botsa Padma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1931 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Botsa Padma, W/o Thowdu, Aged 46 years, Occ House Wife, R/o Ward 38, Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram District

¶8

Dasari Anasurya, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Aged 42 years, Occ Auto Driver, R/o Ward 38 ,Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram^District

¶9

Botsa Venkayamma, W/o Bosta Rambabu, Aged 63 years, Occ Milk business, R/o Ward 38, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Amaravati,^Andhra Pradesh

¶13

The District Collector, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Vizianagaram Mandal,Vizianagaram District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

; Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{Indiaprayingthatin} the*circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia} declaring the action of the respondents in seeking^{dispossessionofthe} petitioners from their House site Patta land admeasuring^25X35square yards each in ward No.38, in TS No.35-part, Block No.2^{NearMutyalamma} Temple, Kothapeta, Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram District without following any procedure known to law as illegal and^{againsttoprinciplesof} natural justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and^{300-AofConstitutionof} India and consequently direct the respondents not to^dispossess the petitioners from their land mentioned above as otherwise^the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, injury, great hardship.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased direct the respondents not to dispossess the^{petitionersfromtheir} House site Patta land admeasuring 25X35 square yards each in ward No.38 in TS No.35-part, Block No.2 Near Mutyalamma Temple, Kothapeta, Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram District.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI P NARAHARI BABU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶24

W.P.No.1931 of 2023

¶25

ORDER;

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that they were granted house site pattas by respondent No.3 by proceedings^No.1113 dated 31.08.2007 and that their possession sought to be disturbed by the staff of respondent No.3 on 20.01.2023 and in that context, the present writ petition was filed.

¶27

This Court on 30.01.2023 passed an interim order directing the respondents not to take any coercive action in respect of the subject property without following due process of law. The interim order granted by this Court redresses the grievance of the petitioners as well as the respondents and making the interim order absolute, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs, As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶28

SDI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR K SECTlOfiJaEFICER

¶31

To,

¶32

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State^ofAndhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, at Velagapudi, Amaravati,^Andhra Pradesh

¶33

The District Collector, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram^District. 3. The Tahsildar, Vizianagaram Mandal,Vizianagaram District 4. One CC to SRI P NARAHARl BABU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1931 of 2023

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Botsa Padma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Botsa Padma 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

Duggempudi Rami Reddy, Guntur Dist Vs Challa Lakshma Reddy, Guntur Dist and Ano

Grandhi Pushpavathi Vs Grandhi Satyanarayana and 5 Ors.

Injam Prasada Reddy at Prasad Vs D. Venkateswara Rao and Another

Vanka Satyanarayana Vs Kakarla Venkateswara Rao

Kondeti Panduranga Rao Vs Smt. Sayana Swayamprabha Dev

S Ameer Vs Smt.S.Parvathi and Another