Disposed

Raghava Reddy Gari Chandhra Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WP/2936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged respondents' attempt to lay a 15-feet road over his small landholding in Chittoor District as a violation of Article 300-A. Standing Counsel stated no current proposal existed and due process would be followed. The Court recorded the submission and directed authorities not to interfere with possession except per due process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raghava Reddy Gari Chandhra Reddy Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

iPRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2936 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Raghava Reddy Gari Chandhra Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, Age 76 years, R/o.Cheruvumundaravari Palli, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Chittoor District.

¶13

The District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District.

¶14

The Executive Engineer, PRI Division, at Punganoor,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶15

The MPDO, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶16

The Palamanda Gram Panchayat, Cheruvumundara Palli, Rep. by its Secretary, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶17

...Respondent

¶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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in highhandedly trying to lay the road of width 15 feet in the land belonging to the petitioner i.e., an extent Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.303-3 situated at Palamanda village, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary^{andviolationofArticle} 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to lay the road in the petitioners land.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 direct the respondents not to lay the road^{ofwidth15feetinthe} land belonging to the petitioner i.e., an extent Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.303-3 situated at Palamanda village, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. C SUBODH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI. G.VENKATA REDDY

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.2936 of 2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article²²⁶

¶31

of the Constitution of India seeking the following^relief;-

¶32

... ot issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate^writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in highhandedly trying to lay the road of width 15 feet^inthe land belonging to the petitioner i.e., an extent Ac-0.02^cents in Sy.No.303-3 situated at Palamanda village, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and^violationof Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently^direct the respondents not to lay the road in the petitioners^land

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the re spondents No. 1 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6. 3. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, Mr.G.Venkata Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing^for respondents No.5 and 6 has informed this Court that as^ontoday there is no proposal to lay road across the petitioner^slandinan extent of extent Ac-0.02 cents in Sy.No.303-3 situated at Palamanda village, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District.^Ifatall,the

\ \

respondents intend to lay road and demolish the subject property of the petitioner, they will follow the due process of law.

¶38

Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, instead of going into the merits of the case, it is suffice to issue a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property,^ifatall he is in possession of the subject property, except by following the due process of law.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶41

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT registrar SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1.The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶44

The District Collector, Chittoor District.

¶45

The District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District.

¶46

The Executive Engineer, PRI Division, at Punganoor, Chittoor^District.

¶47

The MPDO, Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶48

The Secretary, Palamanda Gram Panchayat, Cheruvumundara Palli,-^ Sodum Mandal, Chittoor District.(Addressee Nos. 1 to 6 by RPAD)

¶49

One CC to SRI. C SUBODH Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRI. G.VENKATA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCS to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP), High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies.

PSD

HIGH COURT

PATED:06/02/2024

\ ,v :7 f

ORDER

WP.No.2936 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

Raghava Reddy Gari Chandhra Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raghava Reddy Gari Chandhra Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Pardhu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vijaya Behara Welfare Society Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Julfeekhar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Cbr College of Elementary teacher Education Institution, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sasikanth Reddy College of Pharmacy Vs State of Ap

Yeluri Lalitha Vs the State of Ap