G a Reeddy, Visakhapatnam Dist & 1 Other Vs the State of Ap, Guntur Dist & 3 Others

G A REEDDY, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST & 1 OTHER, S/O. G. PEDA APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-20/3, JODUGULLAPALEM, CHINAGADILI VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶10

G. KUMARI, W/O. APPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-20/3, JODUGULLAPALEM, CHINAGADILI VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP GUNTUR DIST 3 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶15

THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.

¶16

VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, SIRIPURAM, VUDA COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P. .

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

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 toto issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess me from the land situated in Sy. No. 142 and 148 to an extent of Ac.1-46 cents in Chinagadili Village Mandal of Visakhapatnam District without initiating any acquisition proceedings is illegal and arbitrary (2) to declare that the respondents are disentitled to take possession of the land more than the extent which was acquired by them pursuant to the award No. 12 of 1981 and 17 of 1981 consequently direct the respondents not to dispcssess the petitioners without initiation of any acquisition proceedings in respect of the land which does not farm part of the acquisition proceedings in award No.12 of 1981 dated 6-8-1981 and 17 of 1981 dated 9-11-1981 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 38612 OF 2017

¶21

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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioners to an extent of Ac.146 cents of the land in Sy. No. 142 and 148 situated in Chinagadili village and Mandal of Visakhapatnam district pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶26

2.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶27

¶28

3

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶31

The father of the 1^st petitioner herein had purchased Ac.29-09 cents of land in Sy.No.142/1 of Chinagadili Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. An extent of Ac.21-01 cents was sought to be acquired initially and subsequently another proceeding was initiated for acquisition of Ac.4-46 cents totaling Ac.25-47 cents out of the aforesaid Ac.29-09 cents for the purpose of making a layout by the respondents 2 and 3. These acquisition proceedings culminated in an Award 12 of 1981, dated 06.11.1981 and Award No.17 of 1981, dated 09.11.1981. However, in the course of these proceedings, it was specifically stated that an extent of Ac.4-96 cents was being excluded from the acquisition proceedings and compensation was paid only on the remaining land.

¶32

The said land was formed into a layout by a house building Society called Dayal Baugh Cooperative House Building Society, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, claims started being raised against an extent of Ac.1-46 cents in Sy.No.148 by the respondents, on the ground that the said land is the common area earmarked in the layout itself. The petitioners sought to resist these steps on the ground that the said land remained with the petitioners and was not the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings.

¶33

4

¶34

As the respondents continued to claim the land, the petitioners had approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending that the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioners from the land in their possession and more specifically Ac.1-46 cents of land in Sy.Nos.142 and 148 of Chinagadili Village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal.

¶35

In view of the rival claims being made by both sides, it would be necessary to ascertain the factual situation on the ground.

¶36

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶37

i) The 2^nd respondent – District Collector shall depute appropriate officer of the survey and settlement Department, to conduct survey of the land and to demarcate the land which had been acquired under the Award proceedings, dated 06.08.1981 and 09.11.1981;

¶38

ii) After such demarcation, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the land falling outside the demarcated area in the personal land of the petitioners, if the same falls outside the land demarcated by the appropriate Survey and Settlement officer;

¶39

iii) Needless to say, this survey shall be conducted after due notice and opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners and to the respondents 3 and 4;

¶40

5

¶41

iv) Further, the earlier interlocutory order of restraining both sides of making any constructions shall continue to remain in force till the demarcation is completed;

¶42

v) The said exercise of demarcation to be completed within a period

¶43

of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶44

vi) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

________________________

¶47

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J