Dismissed

Salapu Ramana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Jul 2009WP/13874/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court refused to adjudicate the grievance regarding alleged unlawful interference with possession, directing the petitioner to pursue alternative effective remedies such as civil suits or criminal complaints, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs awarded.

Salapu Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 13874 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Salapu Ramana S/o. Late Lachanna R/o. Saalapuvaipalem, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhaptnam District. ..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by District Collector, Maharanipet Visakhapatnam.

¶10

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶11

3 The Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering and proposed to dispossess the petitioner from the house site to an extent of 146 sq. yards in Plot NO. 31 under Sy.No. 357 of Maredupudi Village, Anakapalli Madnal, Visakhapatnam as ultra vires arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner in any manner in respect of the said property and pass

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.R.SUBRAHMANYAM

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

Unlawful interference by the respondents, in particular the 3^rd respondent, with the possession of the petitioner, of a hut in Maredupudi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, is alleged herein.

¶19

The petitioner’s father purchased the site in 1996 from the original assignee Venkanna who was assigned an extent of 146 Sq. yards in plot No. 357 of Maredupudi Village in 1984 with a condition in the assignment that there should not be any alienation within ten years from the date of issuance of the patta. The petitioner’s father purchased the same from Venkanna under a registered sale deed dated 22-2-1996, beyond 10 years from the date of grant of patta. He constructed a hut therein and is residing thereat since 1996. Since 266-2003 the respondents are alleged to be interfering with the possession and enjoyment by the petitioner of the house aforementioned. Hence the writ petition.

¶20

As the respondents are interfering, in particular the 3^rd respondent, without following the due process of law or without initiating any proceedings for acquisition of the property or under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, the petitioner has several remedies. He may exercise the right of private defence to repel the unlawful activity of the respondents; he may lodge a complaint of criminal trespass against the respondents to the jurisdictional police or to the jurisdictional judicial Magistrate by wayof a private complaint; or. he may seek a remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction either for declaration of title or for injunction and if there is any imminent threat of dispossession, he may

¶21

seek dispensing with the requirement of issuance of a notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. In case he is perchance dispossessed without following the due process of law, he may seek restitution of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which is a summary remedy available for illegal dispossession even by the State. As the petitioner has a plurality of effective and alternative remedies, more proximal to his habitat, this court is not inclined to adjudicate the grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs.

¶22

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 13^th July, 2009. GRR

Salapu Ramana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salapu Ramana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ram Narayana, Vs District Collector Karimnagar District

Gopathi Shyam Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Munni Bai Vs Prl. Secretary to Revenue

N. Kamalamani Vs The District Collector

V.Govinda Rao Vs Government of A.P.

Indukuri Rangaraju Vs Government of A.P. rep. by The District Collector