Disposed¶30

Annu Laxmamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2025WP/2328/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Annu Laxmamma and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others; Writ Petition No. 2328/2025; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao; decided 04.02.2025; Article 226 mandamus; land possession and dispossession; due process of law; no coercive steps; Articles 14, 21 and 300-A; GP for Endowments; pattadar passbook and title deeds; Survey No.672-5 Gonugunta Village Chimakurthy Mandal Prakasam District; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions that the respondents follow due process of law before interfering with the petitioners' possession, and refrain from coercive steps against the petitioner regarding the subject land until then; no order as to costs. ¶30

Annu Laxmamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010045552025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 2328/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Annu Laxmamma and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶16

1.SRINIVAS AMBATI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶22

“…pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of their land admeasuring Ac.0.62 cents in Survey No.672-5 situated in Gonugunta Village, Chimakurthy Mandal Prakasam District and further trying to dispossess the petitioners from their said lands without following any known procedure established by law as illegal irregular irrational violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles

¶23

14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of above said lands and pass…”.

¶24

The case of the petitioners in brief is that the father in law of the 1^st petitioner purchased the land admeasuring Ac.3.72 cents in Sy.Nos.672-4 and 672-5 by way of registered sale deed, dated 29.09.1977 vide Document No.1924/1977 and after his demise the said land was partitioned among the husband of the 1^st petitioner and his brothers to an extent of Ac.0.62 cents each. Hence, the husband of the 1^st petitioner got an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.672-5 and his name was mutated in the revenue records. Due to due health the husband of the 1^st petitioner died leaving behind the 1^st petitioner and his daughter (2^nd petitioner) as legal heirs. The petitioners succeeded the said lands and revenue authorities have granted pattadar passbook and title deeds in their favour. While so, the 2^nd respondent is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶25

Heard Mr Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

¶26

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the 2^nd respondent has no valid right, title or interest over the subject land he is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. He further submits that if the 2^nd respondent is not restrained

¶27

from taking steps for dispossessing the petitioners from the subject land, there is every possibility that the petitioners may be dispossessed forcibly from their land by using police force. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests to pass appropriate orders.

¶28

Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the respondents are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners from the subject land and if at all the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land they will follow due process of law.

¶29

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, if the respondents intend to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land they are directed to follow due process of law. Till then, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner with regard to the subject land.

¶30