Disposed

Siege Machi Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Aug 2024WP/8321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain forest officials from interfering with their possession of agricultural lands alleged not to be part of a wildlife sanctuary. The court directed respondents not to dispossess petitioners except by lawful procedure and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to dispossess petitioners except by procedure in accordance with law.

Siege Machi Reddy Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 8321 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Siege Machi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Aged 50 years,Kudumalur Village, H/o Bandalupalli, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

Puturu Reddivari Gangi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Aged 75 years

¶9

Paturu Subba Reddy, S/o Avula Reddy, aged 55 years

¶10

A.V. Subba Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 63 years

¶11

Paturu Subba Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 65 years

¶12

Paturu Gangi Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 45 years

¶13

Paturu Reddivarinadipi Gangi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 64 years

¶14

Paturu Reddivari Subba Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 60 years

¶15

Paturu Gangi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 62 years

¶16

Paturu Subba Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 63^years

¶17

Paturu Machi Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 65 years

¶18

Paturu Ayyavari Reddy, S/o Peddagargaiah, aged 44 years

¶19

Paturu Ayyavari Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 48 years

¶20

Pallem Narayana Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 60 years

¶21

M. Venkata subbaiah, S/o Pullaiah, aged 52 years All are agriculturists and residents of Kudumalur Village, H/o Bandalupalli, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.'

¶22

...PETITIONER(S)

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Forest Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶25

The Principal Conservator of Forest, Chief Wild Life Garden Andhra Pradesh, Guntur.

¶26

The Divisional Forest Officer, YSR Kadapa District,^A.P.

¶27

The Forest Range Officer, Ontimitta, YSR Kadapa^{DistrictAndhra} Pradesh.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with our possession and enjoyment^{ofthelandofthe} petitioners i.e., land in Survey No.393, Acres 3-37 Survey No.390, Acres 2- 38 Survey No.400, Acres 1-00 Survey No.361, Acres 1-60 Survey No.398, Acres 2-27 Survey No.400, Acres 1-82 Survey No.400, Acres 1-82 Survey No.400, Acres 1-82 Survey No.400, Acres 1-82 Survey No.398, Acres 2-00 Survey No.399, Acres 1-55 Survey No.399, Acres 1-50 Survey No.399, Acres 1-55 Survey No.399, Acres 1-55 Survey No.393 Acres 2-55 Survey No.397 Acres 2-36 respectively total admeasuring Acres 30-14 cents situated at Bandarupalli H/o, Kudumalur (V), Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa

¶30

¶31

District, Andhra Pradesh without any manner of right though it does not fall under Sri Penusila Narasimha Swamy Wild Life Sanctuary as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶32

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 grant interim direction directing the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with our possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands i.e.. Survey No.393, Acres 3-37; Survey No.390, Acres 2-38; Survey No.400 Acres 1-00; Survey No.361, Acres 1-60; Survey No.398, Acres 2-27; Survey No.400, Acres 1-82; Survey No.400, Acres 1-82; Survey^No.400 Acres 1- 82; Survey No.400, Acres 1-82; Survey No.398, Acres 2-00; Survey No.399, Acres 1-55; Survey No.399, Acres 1-50; Survey No.399, Acres 1-55; Survey No.399, Acres 1-55; Survey No.393 Acres 2-55; Survey No.397; Acres 2-36 respectively total admeasuring Acres 30-14 cents situated at Bandarupalli H/o, Kudumalur (V), Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶33

lA NO: 2 OF 2Q1R

¶34

Between:

¶35

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh

¶36

The Principal Conservator of Forest, Chief Wild Life Garden Andhra Pradesh, Guntur

¶37

The Divisional Forest Officer, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh

¶38

The Forest Range Officer, Ontimitta, YSR Kadapa^District

¶39

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶40

AND

¶41

Siege Machi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Aged 50 years,Kudumalur Village, H/o Bandalupalli, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶42

Puturu Reddivari Gangi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Aged⁷⁵ years

¶43

Paturu Subba Reddy, S/o Avula Reddy, aged 55 years

¶44

A.V. Subba Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 63 years

¶45

Paturu Subba Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 65 years

¶46

Paturu Gangi Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 45 years

¶47

Paturu Reddivarinadipi Gangi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 64 years

¶48

Paturu Reddivari Subba Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged⁶⁰ years

¶49

Paturu Gangi Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 62 years

¶50

Paturu Subba Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 63 years

¶51

Paturu Machi Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 65 years

¶52

Paturu Ayyavari Reddy, S/o Peddagargaiah, aged 44 years

¶53

Paturu Ayyavari Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, aged 48 years

¶54

Pallem Narayana Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, aged 60 years 15. M. Venkata subbaiah, S/o Pullaiah, aged 52 years All are agriculturists and residents of Kudumalur Village, H/o Bandalupalli Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶55

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶56

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 vacate the interim orders dated: 14-03-2018 passed in WP.No.8321 of 2018 and dismiss the Writ Petition

¶57

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y VENKATASATYAM Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4: GP FOR FORESTS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶58

[3330]

¶59

APHC010189442018

¶60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶61

¶62

AT AMARAVATI

¶63

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶64

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶65

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶68

WRIT PETITION NO: 8321/2018

¶69

Between:

¶70

Siege Machi Reddy and Others

¶71

...PETITIONER(S)

¶72

AND

¶73

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶74

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶75

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶76

1.Y VENKATASATYAM

¶77

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶78

1.GP FOR FORESTS (AP)

¶79

¶80

¶81

The Court made the following order:

¶82

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶83

India seeking the following relief:

¶84

“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with our possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioners i.e., land in Survey No.393, Acres 3-37; Survey No.390, Acres^2- 38; Survey No.400, Acres 1-00; Survey No.361, Acres 1-60; Survey No.398, Acres 2-21; Survey No.400 Acres 1-82; Survey No. 400, Acres 1-82; Survey No. 398, Acres 2-00; Survey No. 399, Acres 1-55; Survey No. 393 Acres 2-55; Survey No.397; Acres 2-36 respectively total admeasuring Acres 30-14 cents situated at Bandarupalli H/o, Kudumalur (V), Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh without any manner of right though it does not fall^underSri Penusiia Narasimha Swamy Wild Life Sanctuary as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19, 21^and300-Aof the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders..."

¶85

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned^counselfor the respondents.

¶86

The agony of the writ petitioners is that the respondent^Nos.3 and 4 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of agricultural land in Survey Nos.390, 393, 397, 398, 399 and 400 in an extent of Ac.30-14 cents situated at Bandarupalli H/o, Kudumalur (V), Vontimitta Mandal and the said lands does not fall under Sri Penusilla Narasimha Swamy Wild Life Sanctuary and the land was devolved from their ancestors. Brooding the interference of the respondents, the petitioners

¶87

¶88

approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction not to interfere with their possession.

¶89

It is further asserted in the writ petition that in and around the petitioners land, the respondents have acquired the land and the forest department without proper identification of the land, interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners appeared through^video- conference and submits that there is a boundary dispute^betweenthe petitioners and the forest department. The forest department may be directed to conduct enquiry and fix the boundaries and pass appropriate orders. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents filed their^counter. It is asserted in the counter that survey number lands were acquired for Sri Penusilla Narasimha Swamy Wild Life Sanctuary and the compensation was fixed after passing of the award and it is para^{No.5ofthecounter} the 4'^ respondent i.e.. The Forest Range Officer Vontimitta,^hasnot specifically inspected the above lands and obstructed from their enjoyment, but during the general inspection it is noticed about the enjoyment of the lands by the villagers and no threat^wasmadetothe possession. As it was happened, the records restraining the lands acquired under Project have not been communicated to the Forest officials by the revenue and irrigation officials, though respondents 3 and 4 requested to furnish the concerned details by addressing letters

¶90

¶91

¶92

vide Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa, letter No.599/2003/A8, dated 16.09.2015 addresses to the Special Deputy Collector and Rc.No.599/2003/A8, dated 22.11.2016 addressed to Special Deputy Collector, Somasila Reservoir Rajampet. The details of the A\A/ards passed, if any and the connected records are awaited^{fromtheSpecial} Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project Unit-IV, Rajampet^Kadapa District. The petitioner failed to produce authentic^documents, while claiming the right for enjoyment of the lands. Hence,^{prayedtodismiss} the writ petition.

¶93

It is known principle, the State is governed by rule of law, a statutory authority cannot dispossess even a trespasser in settled occupation, without recourse to law.

¶94

Therefore the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners expect^byrecourseto procedure in accordance with law. There shall be no^{orderastocosts.}

¶95

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^any, shall also stand closed. SDI- A VENUGOPALA

¶96

SDI- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR isEGTI^N^FlCER

¶97

//TRUE COPY//

¶98

To, 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Princ|Pa'Secreta^ Forest ■ Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District,

¶99

Th^Principafconservator of Forest, Chief Wiid Life^GardenAndhra Pradesh, Guntur. r.. • * a d

¶100

3 The Divisional Forest Officer, YSR Kadapa District,^A.P. 4. The Forest Range Officer, Ontimitta, YSR Kadapa^{DistrictAndhra} Pradesh

¶101

One CCL toSRlYVENKATASATYAM Advocate [OPUC] ^ ^ 6 Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶102

Three CD Copies. Smb

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/08/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8321 of 2018

t m.
.,g 0 h OCT 2C2^«
. Current Section ,

¶109

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Siege Machi Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siege Machi Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devuni Kadapa Police Department Employees Mutually Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasari Bangaru Naidu, Visakhapatnam District Vs Prl. Secretary, Planning and Co-Op Dept-Iv., Hyd and 4 Others

Kadavakuti Sanjeevarayudu, Vs The Registrar/ Commissioner

G. Sunder Raju Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Addagiri Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Beera Vijaya Saradhi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh