Dismissed

Sri Yennisetti Sahadev v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary

Telangana HC15 Jul 2009WP/12123/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging dispossession from government lands. The court held that disputes regarding land identity and ownership are factual matters requiring civil court intervention, making Article 226 inappropriate for such grievances.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Sri Yennisetti Sahadev Vs State of Andhra Pradesh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12123 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Sri Yennisetti Sahadev S/o.late Y.Narayana Resident of Amistapur Village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶7

2 Sri Yennisetti Gopal S/o.late Y.Narayana Resident of Amistapur Village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶8

3 Smt Yennisetti Venkatamma W/o.late Y.Sattayya Resident of Amistapur Village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

4 Golla Venkatamma W/o.Chendrayya Resident of Amistapur Village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 5 Yennisetti Venkarayya S/o.Ramayya Resident of Amistapur Village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary for Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Collectorate, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Bootpoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

4 A.P. Housing Board, represented by Chairman & Managing Director, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

5 The Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Mahabubnagar District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in dispossessing the petitioners from their land in S.No. 514 to an extent of 3 Acres and interfering in their remaining land as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution, consequently direct the respondents not to make any further constructions in the lands of the petitioners covered in S.Nos.511, 512, 513 and 514 of Amistapur Village,

¶17

Bootpur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and also remaining lands covered in S.No.514, (b) Direct the 5th respondent to conduct survey in lands of the petitioners in Sy.No. 511, 512, 513 and 514 of Amistapur Village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, pursuant to the application of the petitioners dated 20.03.2009 and to pass.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶22

W.P.No. 12123 of 2009

¶23

15-07-2009

¶24

Oral Order:

¶25

The singular grievance in the writ petition is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac.03-00 gts., in survey No. 514 of Amistapur village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the property and to be possessing pattedar passbook granted by the 3^rd respondent for the lands in several survey numbers of a total extent of Ac.25-22 gts., as mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The Government owns adjacent lands. The petitioners applied to the 5^th respondent for survey and demarcation of their lands and Government lands. The petitioners allege that no steps were taken for demarcation. While so, the respondents are trying to encroach into the lands of the petitioners in survey Nos. 511, 512, 513 and 514 of Amistapur village, Bootpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District without following the due process of law.

¶26

The respondent Nos. 3 and 5 have filed counter affidavits. To the extent relevant and material, the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent states that the Government allotted, out of the land in survey No. 516 an extent of Ac.103-09 cents to the Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited through G.O.Ms.No. 98, Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 30-01-2009 and the Government has paid ex-gratia to some of the persons displaced in the process. It is clearly and categorically asserted that the respondents have not taken possession of any other lands or encroached on any neighboring land in survey Nos. 511, 512, 513 and 514 and that the respondents are proceeding to the utilization of Government lands alone.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances and the averments in the rival pleadings, the essential dispute is with regard to the identity of the lands. Such factual disputes ought not to be determined in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners are aggrieved as to the illegal conduct of the respondents or intend to establish the identity or ownership of the lands in question, they may pursue appropriate remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Article 226 is an inappropriate remedy therefor. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies. No costs.

¶28

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 15-07-2009 Pvks

Sri Yennisetti Sahadev v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yennisetti Sahadev v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary

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

Smt. Samburu Aruna Vs The tahsildar

B. Phanidra Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Akber Hussain Vs Haleema Begum , Ameena Begum

Smt. Rukhmini Bai Vs The District Collector

Gundloooru Shankaraiah Vs The District Collector, Kadapa District.

V. Indrasena Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh