Dismissed

Vemula Govindamani, v. State of Ap.

Telangana HC16 Dec 2010WP/2775/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a declaration that respondents could not interfere with their possession of specific plots in Sy.No.8/1. The court, noting that encroachers in adjacent land were evicted, filed for a status quo ante. It directed respondents not to interfere with petitioners' possession without due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with petitioners' possession in Sy.No.8/1 without due process of law.

Vemula Govindamani, Vs State of Ap. — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO:2775 OF 2005

¶4

DATED:16.12.2010

¶5

Between:

¶6

1. Vemula Govindamani and others.

¶7

.....PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1. State of A.P., rep., by District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others.

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

This Court made the following :

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO:2775 OF 2005

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare that the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the property in plots No.27, 28 and 29 in Sy.No.8/1 admeasuring 300 sq. yards each, situated in Revellapalem village, H/o Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have purchased small extents of land i.e., 300 sq. yards

¶17

each from a true owner under registered sale deeds and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and when they are making arrangements to construct their houses, the respondents started interfering with their possession and enjoyment on the ground that the property held by the petitioners is an assigned waste land.

¶18

While admitting the writ petition on 17.2.2005, this Court directed the parties to maintain statusquo obtaining as on that day.

¶19

There is no necessity of going into all the details.

¶20

The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 & 4 on instructions received from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural), states that the lands in Sy.No.8/1 of Madhurawada village are patta lands and therefore, question of interference with the said lands by the respondents does not arise, but however, in the guise of patta lands in Sy.No.8/1, the petitioners and others encroached into the Government land adjacent to Sy.No.8/1 and all those persons, who had encroached into the Government land were already evicted on 5.12.2004.

¶21

Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property held by the petitioners in Sy.No.8/1 and if there is any necessity of interference, the same shall not be caused without due process of law.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

______________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated:16.12.2010 Nn.

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO:2775 OF 2005

¶26

16.12.2010

Vemula Govindamani, v. State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemula Govindamani, v. State of Ap.

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

Shaik Shamsad Begm Vs Rayalaseema Grameena Bank

K.Anil Reddy Vs Tahsildar Rajendranagar Tahsil

S.Parvathi , Vs The Secretary, Aprei Society (R)

Andhra Pradesh Weaker Section Housing Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Tikkavarapu Sanath Kumar Reddy Vs The District Collector Nellore

T.V. Acharyulu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh