Disposed

Smt Palla Sunitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2025WP/7534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to adjudicate their appeal under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act against eviction orders concerning their house plot. The court directed disposal of the appeal within three months and status quo till then.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to dispose of Section 10 appeal within three months; both parties to maintain status quo on subject property until disposal.

Smt Palla Sunitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

i i

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

AGH c o
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCFj'^I^
I CO
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
■/
PRESENT VaV;

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7534 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Palla Sunitha, W/o. Rambabu Age 42 years, Occ: Household Duties R/o. D No. 7-8-19/1, Pallavari Street, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

Panchadarla Satyaveni, W/o. Ramachandra Rao, Age 37 years, Occ: Household duties R/o. D No. 7-8-19/1, Pallavari Street, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary^Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶15

The District Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶16

Tahsildar, Gajpwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not

¶19

<«?

¶20

adjudicating in the appeal filed under Section 10 of A.P Land Encroachment Act against the orders passed by 5th respondent^inRc.No. 137/2024/SA/Dt. 03.2024 dated 28-03-2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violatiph of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand to consequently direct the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal and further direct the respondents not to interfere the petitioners house situated in an extent of 136.67 sq. yds. covered by house bearing D. No. 7-8-19/1, Chattivanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 demolish the petitioners house bearing D. No. 7-8-19/1, Chattivanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V V SATISH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following order:

W.P.No.7534 of 2025

APHC010148052025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3329]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 7534/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

Smt Palla Sunitha and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petltioner(S):

¶41

1.VVSATISH

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

¶46

NV,J W.P.No.7534 of 2025

¶47

ORDER;

¶48

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in not adjudicating the appeal filed under Section 10 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act against the orders passed by the 5*^ respondent in Rc.No.137/2024/SA/dt.03.2024 dated 28.03.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the 3^^ respondent to dispose of the appeal and further direct the respondents not to interfere the petitioners house situated in an extent of 136.67 sq.yds covered by house bearing D.No.7-819/1, Chattivanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

¶49

The petitioners are the owners and possessors of residential plot admeasuring an extent of 136-67 sq.yds in Sy.No.79/1 of Chattivarnipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatam District, having acquired the same under registered Gift Settlement Deed Document No. 1724/2000 dated 07.02.2000 executed by their father. While so, the respondent issued notice^{underSection7ofthe} Land Encroachment Act, 1905 calling for the explanation of the petitioners alleging that the petitioners constructed building in Sy.No.78/1 of Mindi Village, which is classified as Poramboke Cheruvu. Further, the 5“^ respondent issued Endorsement in Rc.No.137/2024/SA dated 24.01.2025 proposing to take further action under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act before the 3'^'^ respondent. Though the 3^^^ respondent

¶50

¶51

N, W.P.No.7534 of 202^

¶52

received the appeal, he neither considered the same nor passed any orders. Hence the writ petition.

¶53

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, to issue a direction to the 3^^ respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners.

¶54

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the appeal, if any pending with the respondents.

¶55

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such^{directionbeissued,} in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government^ofIndia v. P.Venkatesh^”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory^{institutions.But,} they do no service to the cause of justice. As the^{learnedcounselforthe} petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners, I find no other alternative except^{toissuesuchdirection.}

¶56

The delay in not disposing of the appeal is violative^{ofArticle226ofthe} Constitution of India, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 3 rd

¶57

2019(8) SCALE 544

¶58

¶59

NV,J W.P.No.7534 of 2025

¶60

¶61

¶62

respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner,^{inaccordancewith} law, within three (03) months today. Both parties shall^{maintainstatusquoin} respect of the subject property, till disposal of the^appeal.

¶63

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed^of.

¶64

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,^{shallalsostand}

¶65

closed.

¶66

¶67

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶68

SEC FICER

¶69

To,

¶70

The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State^ofAndhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶71

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

¶72

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam

¶73

District.

¶74

The District Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶75

The Tahsildar, Gajpwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶76

OneCCto Sri. VV Satish Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶78

Three CD Copies

¶79

GSC

¶80

✓

¶81

JHIGH COURT DATED :21/03/2025

¶82

ORDER

¶83

WP.No.7534 of 2025

¶84

:r 0 2 2C?5 \i
Curretii Section
O P" O

¶85

DtSPOSING OF THE WP

¶86

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt Palla Sunitha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Palla Sunitha v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.V. Gnanasekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kotharu Pandu Ranga Rao Vs the State of Ap

Surapaneni Harshapriya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gonthu Puli Suresh Ratnam Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

Naganaboyina Appala Setti Vs the State of Ap

Beesham Harinath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh