Chimpiri Siddi Rami Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

SRI SATYA SAI SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY REGD, VIDE NO.345/96 REP BY ITS SECRETARY P. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY,S/O BALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O KUPPURUVARI PALLE VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.07.08.2024 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO. 01 OF 2022.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

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 topleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring (a) the proceedings of the 4th respondent herein vide Ref. No. B/918/2016 under Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and passing impugned orders under Section 6 of the Act vide Ref. No. B/918/2016, dated 16.01.2021, (b) the action of respondents herein in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 5.65 cents in Sy. No. 2580 of S.Upparapalli Revenue Village, Rly. Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District, as highly arbitrary, illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction, against the provisions of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and violation of fundamental rights apart from Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the proceedings under Ref. No. 13/918/2016 and to direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess 016 petitioner from his land in an extent of Ac.5.65 cents in Survey No.2580 of S. Upparapalli village, Railway Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of petitioner pursuant to the proceedings of 4th respondent under Ref. No. 8/918/2016, dated 16.01.2021. pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

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 pleased to implead the Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.5 as Party Respondent No.5 in the above writ petition and to pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶26

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 may be pleased to grant leave to file counter affidavit to implead petition filed by the proposed 5'^' respondent in Writ Petition No. 1940 of 2021 and to pass

¶27

3

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶29

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 pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/respondent No. 5 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition W.P. No. 1940 of 2021

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶31

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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 27-012021 in WP.No. 1940 of 2021 and to dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶36

2.M L NEELIMA

¶37

4

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶40

This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the notice dated 16.01.2021 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 stating that the petitioner occupied the subject land by way of encroachment in an extent of Ac.5.65 cents in Sy.No.2580 of S.Upparapalli Village, Railway Kodur Mandal and raised cotton crop.

¶41

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 relying upon the counter of the 4^th respondent submits that the petitioner filed the present writ petition and also instituted O.S. No.85 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur to obstruct the process of law initiated by the 4^th respondent. Since no direction was given by the learned trial court, the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the above said proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 16.01.2021. Since it is a government land, the said notice was issued.

¶42

However, the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submits that the subject land is a private land purchased by the 5^th respondent and there is a rival litigation between the petitioner and the

¶43

5

¶44

5^th respondent with respect to the subject land and as such there were civil proceedings initiated between the parties concerned and the same is pending at the stage of S.A.Nos.405 and 406 of 2022 before this Hon’ble Court wherein the official respondents are not the parties in the said appeals.

¶45

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner herein instituted O.S. No.85 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur against the official respondents with respect to the subject land and the same is pending.

¶46

In turn, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent also submits that the 5^th respondent got impleaded in the said suit and the same is pending for consideration. Thus, when the matters are pending in the civil proceedings as stated above, for the purpose of continuing illegal possession, the petitioner in collusion with the 4^th respondent got issued the above said impugned notice against the petitioner so as to question the same by way of writ petitions to obtain some interim orders contrary to the orders passed by the respective civil courts.

¶47

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as the above said civil proceedings are pending before the appropriate courts at different stages with respect to the subject land between all the parties concerned i.e., the petitioner, the unofficial respondent and the official respondents, it is not just and proper to invoke writ petitions by either of

¶48

6

¶49

the parties to interdict the civil proceedings that are pending before the above said courts by pursuing parallelly the writ petitions before this court which cannot be encouraged by this court at any cost. Hence, as the above said impugned notice was issued by the 4^th respondent the same shall be shown quietus on following the due procedure for which the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.5 are permitted to submit their explanations within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of those explanations from the petitioners and the 5^th respondent, upon verification of the records and the subject land and by taking into consideration of the orders passed by the appropriate courts in the above said civil proceedings, appropriate decision shall be taken by the 4^th respondent on its own merits. Since the 4^th respondent is also one of the parties claiming the subject land in the said civil proceedings and without giving rise to any other multiple litigations and inviting contradictory orders the said decision shall be taken by the said authority. Bearing it in mind, the scenario of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon consideration of the legal position only the 4^th respondent shall pass final orders strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. The said civil proceedings shall be decided on its own merits. Any interim relief is required, the parties concerned shall approach the concerned civil courts in the above said proceedings.

¶50

7

¶51

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any,

¶52

deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶55

05.01.2026 NNN

Chimpiri Siddi Rami Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chimpiri Siddi Rami Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Prabhakara Reddy. Vs Sri. Anil Kumar Singhal

P.V.S.R. Constructions Vs Sri. Shashibhushan Kumar

Gurajala Sudhakar, Vs Sri Sashi Bhushan Kumar

Smt.G.Krishnamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Rajagopal Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mullu Kodi Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh