Disposed

Kosuri Tiraparamma v. The Special Deputy Collector ( Tribal Welfare )

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Dec 2024WP/5878/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the respondents' attempt to dispossess the petitioner from cultivable land without following due process of law. The court directed respondents to adhere to statutory procedure before any interference and dismissed the matter.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to follow due procedure contemplated under the law if there is any interference or dispossession of the petitioner's subject land.

Kosuri Tiraparamma Vs The Special Deputy Collector… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5878 OF 2011

¶6

Between;

¶7

Kosuri Tiraparamma, D/o. Late Venkanna Cultivation^{R/o.MallavaramMamiliu} Vilalge, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Special Deputy Collector ( Tribal Welfare ), Rampachodavaram E.G.District

¶11

The Tahsidlar, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari^District

¶12

The Special Deputy Tahsidlar, Tribal Welfare, Addateegala^Mandal East Godavari Dsitrict

¶13

Kottu Atcha Rao, S/o. Not Known to the petitioenr^{R/o.NearUnion} Bank of India, Addateegala Village, Addateegala Mandal,

¶14

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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in seeking to dispossess the petitioner^{fromherlandto} an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents in SY.No. 46 of Mallavaram Mamiliu Village,

¶15

Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 21 and 300A of the Contitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land to an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents in Sy.No. 46 of Mallavaram Mamiliu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of^law in the interest of justice.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 7315 OF 2011)

¶17

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 not to dispossess the petitioner from her land to an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents in Sy.no. 46^{ofMallavaramMamiliu} Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENKATESH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No 4 : SRI S. R. SANKU AND^KAVITI MURALI KRISHNA

¶21

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶22

APHC010034212011

¶23

■ u

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 5878/2011

Between:

Kosuri Tiraparamma

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENT(S) The Special Deputy Collector Tribal Welfare and Others

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.K VENKATESH

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1 .GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶38

2.S R SANKU AND KAVITI MURALI KRISHNA

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶42

seeking the following relief;

¶43

‘‘...to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus^declaringthe action of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from her land to an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents^inSy.NoA6 of Mallavaram Mamlllu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of^{lawasillegal,} arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Articles 14,^21and300A ' of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the

¶44

Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land to an extent of Ac.2.36 Hectares in Sy.No.46 of Mallavaram Mamiliu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess^the petitioner from her land to an extent of 2.36 Hectares in Sy.No.46 of Mallavaram Mamiliu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Articlel4, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land to an extent of 2.36 Hectares In Sy.No.46 of Mallavaram Mamiliu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders... ”

¶45

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein belongs to Konda Reddy (S.T.) Community and she was granted “D” form Patta by Respondent No.2 on 11.08.1994 to an extent of 2.36 Hectares situated in Sy.No.46 of Mallavarm Mamiliu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and also she has been eking out her livelihood by cultivation the subject land. While so. Respondent No.3 without any authority of law and in collusion with Respondent No.4 preventing the petitioner from doing agricultural operations and being harassing by stating that not to enter into the lands.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent No.4 is trying to grab the petitioner’s land with the support of Respondent Nos.2

¶49

and 3 and trying to dispossess the petitioner in high^{handedmannerwithout} issuing any notice and without following due process of law. Hence^thewrit petition.

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents^{submitsthatin} the view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 09.03.2011, Respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s^{subjectproperty.Learned} counsel further submits that if any such proposal is^{made,theRespondents} will follow the due process of law . 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned^{counselforboth} the parties, it is settled proportion of law that if^{theRespondentsareintended} to make any developments / interference through the petitioner’s property, they are under the obligation to follow the due procedure^{ascontemplated} under the law. Therefore, the Respondents shall follow^{thedueprocedureas} contemplated under the law, if there is any interference / dispossess thp petitioner in respect of the subject land.

¶51

With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is^disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

in the writ 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending petition shall stand closed. <^d/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO assistant registrar

¶53

//true copy// SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

Tribal Welfare ), Rampachodavaram, 1 The Special Deputy Collector ( E.G. District. East Godavari District. 2. The Tahsidlar, Addateegala Mandal

¶56

V-

¶57

The Special Deputy Tahsidlar, Tribal Welfare, Addateegala^Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶58

One CC to Sri K. Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.} [OUT]

¶60

One CC to Sri S. R. Sanku And Kaviti Murali Krishna, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

BKB

DATED:12/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.5878 of 2011

tD<br>\ 3 FEB 2025 mi
to,
. Current oeciiun . .y

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS

Kosuri Tiraparamma v. The Special Deputy Collector ( Tribal Welfare )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kosuri Tiraparamma v. The Special Deputy Collector ( Tribal Welfare )

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

G. Sudhakar Reddy Vs Sri. Sasi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.

M Ramana Reddy Vs Sri Shashibushan Kumar

Gongari Nagi Reddy Vs Sri Shamsheer Singh Rawat

Sreenivasa Automobiles Vs Shri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi IAS

Kapa Chiranjeevi, Vs The Union Of India

Mallavalli Venkata Sailaja Devi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh