Disposed

Dr.Gunnam Sangitha Sujayasri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024WP/6696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No. 6696 of 2022, the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking non-interference in land possession. The Court relied on an advocate-commissioner's survey report and the respondents' assurance, dismissing the need for further judicial intervention on the land's merit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No further orders required. No reliefs granted.

Dr.Gunnam Sangitha Sujayasri Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) a

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMB^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR L

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6696 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr.Gunnam Sangitha Sujayasri, W/ o. Dr. G. Narayana^RaoAged39 years, Occ.Doctor R/o.D.No.38-4-24 Budhavarapu Street Palakol, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal^{SecretaryHome} Department, A.P.Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati,^{GunturDistrict}

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District,^Eluru,AP

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsapur, W.G.District,^AP

¶13

The Circle Inspector, Palakol Town Police Station^Palakol,West Godavari District, AP

¶14

The Tahsildar, Palakol Mandal, W.G.District, AP

¶15

The Palakol Municipality, Palakol, West Godavari^{District,APRep.byits} Commissioner

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^theHighCourt

¶18

may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent ..1/ Wos,' 4 and 5 in interfering with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the site admeasuring an. extent of 147.4.59 Sq.Yards^{atDoorNo.38-1-52} * “in R.S.No.210 of Palakol, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh without any manner of right, power or authority as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Art. 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said property and if necessary by conducting survey through the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to demarcate the said land and fix the boundaries by referring to respective^titledeeds

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the site admeasuring^anextent of 147.4.59 Sq.Yardsat Door No.38-1-52 in R.S.No.210 of Palakol, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No. 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No. 6: SRI. M. MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUCH AND MUNC CORP)

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶26

¶27

APHC010112702022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3368]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 6696/2022

¶34

Between:

¶35

Dr.Gunnam Sangitha Sujayasri ...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR HOME

¶42

2.GPFOR REVENUE

¶43

3.M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) The Court made the following:

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^of India is filed for the following relief:

¶46

“ ... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of aMiritof mandamus declaring the

¶47

¶48

¶49

action of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in interfering with petitioners possession and enjoyment of the site admeasuring an extent of 147.4.59 Sq. Yards at Door No.38152 in R.S.No.210 of Palakol, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh without any manner of right power or authority as highly illegal, arbitraiy exercise^of power and violative of Art. 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said property and if necessary by conducting survey through the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to demarcate the said land and fix the boundaries by referring to respective title deeds and pass...”

¶50

Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that^advocate- commissioner appointed by the Court conducted survey and submitted report by demarking the disputed land.

¶51

Sri S.Sarath Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on written instructions would submit that the advocatecommissioner appointed by the Court submitted his report^after survey, and the 4^^ respondent will never interfere with the disputed land, as identified by the surveyor.

¶52

¶53

In that view of the matter, the report of advocatecommissioner is taken on record.

¶54

The submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are placed on record.

¶55

In the light of foregoing facts and circumstances,^thisCourt is of the opinion that no further orders are required in the writ petition, and it can be disposed of, without going^{intothemeritsof} the disputed land, directing the respondents No.4 and 5 not to interfere with the land identified by the advocate-commissioner appointed by this Court, except under due process of^law.

¶56

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There^shallbe no orders as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶58

¶59

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO FICER

¶60

To,

¶61

1 The Principal Secretary Home Department, A.P.Secretariat Veiagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶62

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru, AP

¶63

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsapur, W.G.District,^AP

¶64

The Circle Inspector, Palakol Town Police Station Palakol, West Godavari District, AP

¶65

The Tahsildar, Palakol Mandal, W.G.District, AP

¶66

The Palakol Municipality, Palakol, West Godavari District, AP Rep.by^its

¶67

Commissioner

¶68

One CC to SRI. TURAGA SAI SURYA Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

Two CCS to GP FOR HOME .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

¶70

[OUT]

¶71

Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

¶72

-R^.)^^rghiro'ud^rdrp^ “,pae

11 Three CD Copies.

Smb

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.6696 of 2022

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

Dr.Gunnam Sangitha Sujayasri v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Gunnam Sangitha Sujayasri 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

Tamarana Yerramnaidu, Vs The State of A.P.

Gudeti Balakoti Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Literary Club, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondepu Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bulla Yesu Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Datla Phani Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh