Dismissed

Tunga Rama Devi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Apr 2025WP/20040/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement barring her from obstructing municipal work on disputed land. The court found the land classified as 'Kaalava Poramboke' (government land). Lacking proprietary evidence, the petitioner's claim failed, and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Tunga Rama Devi Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010392532023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3333]

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20040/2023

Between:

Tunga Rama Devi

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.RAJENDRA BUSSA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

¶19

2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶20

3.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶25

“….to issue a Writ Order or orders, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Endorsement vide Roc No. 96/2023/G1, dt. 28.07.2023 issued by the 2. respondent herein relating to of an extent of Ac. 0.05cents out of total extent of an Ac. 0.38cents, in Sy.No.118, (paimaish No.180) Total Area 2178 Sq feets or 242.00 Sq Yards or 202.451 Sq Metres, Bounded by. East. MBT Road to Bridge, West. Koundinya Channel, South. MSR Theatre and Thatimakulapalyam Road, North. Threads and Ropes seller of Smt. Dasari Susheelamma shop situated at Mudeppa Circle, Punganur, Chittoor District is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set-aside the same and pass...”

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that when the respondent authorities along with municipal counselors and mandal surveryors trespassed with unnumbered JCBs and demolished the petitioner’s shop along with its structures in an extent of 0.05 cents out of a total extent of Acs.0.38 cents in Sy.No.118, Mudeppa Circle, Punganur, Chittoor on various occasions (19.11.2021, 20.11.2021, 21.11.2021 and 23.11.2021) without issuing a notice, the petitioner herein has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.28917 of 2021, wherein, vide orders dated 20.12.2022, this Court has issued the following directions:

¶27

“ 12. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is being disposed of finally with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land/property.

¶28

13. If any action is required to be taken by the municipality for some valid reasons, it is open to the 1^st respondent to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible under law with due observance of principles of natural justice and as per the procedure prescribed under the statute.”

¶29

¶30

Inspite of there being orders from this Court, while the petitioner was selling vegetables at the shop, the respondent authorities on 29.04.2023, 02.05.2023 and 03.05.2023 have tried to dispossess the petitioner from the subject shop. As such, the petitioner has filed a contempt case vide C.C.S.R.No.18815 of 2023 against the respondents. In the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent has issued notice to the petitioner dated 02.06.2023 stating that the petitioner has objected when the respondent authorities are carrying out repairs in Mudeppa circle (Koundinya river retaining wall) and that the petitioner has contended that the subject land belongs to her. As such, the petitioner was directed to submit the relevant documents of the property within three days. To the said notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 03.06.2023 stating that the documents of the petitioner’s property are with her advocate residing in Guntur. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted another reply on 12.06.2023 stating that the petitioner’s father in law has been doing business in the said land and the same was continued by the petitioner’s husband and after the demise of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner has been continuing the business in the said land. The petitioner further stated that she has been paying trade license fee to the concerned authorities regularly. Relying upon the same, the petitioner has been claiming the ownership of the land to an extent of 0.05 acres in Sy.No.118 of Punganur Revenue village. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, vide endorsement dated 28.07.2023, the respondent authorities have instructed the petitioner not to cause any obstruction to the municipality or its office personnel against any development activity taken in the land located in Sy.No.118 of Punganur Revenue Village as the authority over the land is vested in the Municipal council and it is the custodian for all the government lands within its municipal limits. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶31

¶32

The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that, the respondent authorities, in the months of April and May, 2023, have visited the river bund of Koundinya river for strengthening of bund; at that juncture, the petitioner, presuming unnecessary things has obstructed the works of municipal staff, hence, a show –cause notice dated 02.06.2023 was issued to the petitioner with a request to submit all documents supporting her claim of the land to an extent of Acs.0.05 cents in Sy.No.118 of Punganur revenue village. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has submitted a reply on 06.06.2023 and 15.06.2023, wherein the petitioner has not submitted any valid registered documents claiming the ownership of the subject land, but, the petitioner, relying upon the receipts of trade licenses has claimed the ownership over the subject land which is baseless as trade license does not confer any ownership over the trading place to the licensee. It is further stated that the respondents, after duly following the procedure stipulated under law has issued the impugned endorsement dated 28.07.2023. Thus, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶33

Though the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is in similar lines to that of the affidavit filed in support of petition, hence, it need not be reiterated.

¶34

Heard Sri. Bussa Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶35

Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions received from the 2^nd respondent wherein it is stated that after receiving explanation of the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 02.06.2023, the Town surveyor has surveyed the subject site and has submitted a report stating that as per the revenue records, the entire extent of Acs.0.38 cents in Sy.No.118 of Punganur

¶36

¶37

Revenue village is classified as Kaalava Poramboke land and that the same has been recorded in the Adangal & SLR records. As the petitioner has failed to produce any proper evidence to the respondents with regard to her claim on the subject property, the 2^nd respondent has issued the impugned endorsement dated 28.07.2023 after duly following the procedure as contemplated under law. It is further stated in the instructions that the petitioner has no ownership right over the subject land as it is classified as Kalava poramboku as per revenue records. As such, the respondents would act as per A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 in coordination with revenue department by following due process of law.

¶38

On a perusal of the entire material available on record, it can be seen that earlier, when the respondent authorities trespassed with unnumbered JCBs and demolished the petitioner’s shop along with its structures in an extent of 0.05 cents out of a total extent of Acs.0.38 cents in Sy.No.118, Mudeppa Circle, Punganur, Chittoor, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.28917 of 2021, wherein, vide orders dated 20.12.2022, this Court has directed the respondents to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible under law with due observance of principles of natural justice and as per the procedure prescribed under the statute. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent, vide notice dated 02.06.2023, directed the petitioner to submit documents exhibiting her ownership of the subject land. But, without submitting any proper evidence, the petitioner has submitted explanation on 03.06.2023 and 12.06.2023. While so, the town surveyor has surveyed the site and submitted a report stating that as per the revenue records, the entire extent of 0.38 acres in Sy.No.118 of Punganur Revenue village is classified as ‘Kaalava Poramboke land’ and the same has been recorded in the adangal and SLR records.

¶39

¶40

In the absence of any evidence or supporting documents submitted by the petitioner to substantiate her claim over the subject land, neither the second respondent nor this Court can assess or determine her title over the said property. Furthermore, the town surveyor, after conducting a thorough survey of the site, has submitted a conclusive report stating that the entire extent of 0.38 acres in Survey No. 118 of Punganur revenue village has been classified as "Kaalava Poramboke" land, which is designated as government land meant for public use or specific purposes under the revenue classification. Since the land is officially recorded as "Kaalava Poramboke," which is not meant for private ownership, the petitioner cannot claim ownership over the said property. In the absence of ownership rights and in the absence of any specific proof in support of her claim, the petitioner cannot contend that the land belongs to her.

¶41

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Petition, shall stand closed.

¶43

______________________

¶44

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶45

Date:04.04.2025

¶46

Gss

Tunga Rama Devi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tunga Rama Devi v. the State of Ap

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

N Kavitha Vs K Mahaboob Basha

The Management of Mh Appa Aided High School Vs K. Sashidhar

M/S Shriram General Insurance Com., Ltd. Vs Surampudi Durga

S M N R O Primary School Vs Sri Praveen Prakash IAS

The Assistant General Manager, Rg-I, Vs The Presiding Officer

M/s Fertile Green Inc. Vs M. M. Nayak, IAS