Allowed

Smt. Cherukuri Nagendramma v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jun 2011WP/15427/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, having acquired land via registered sale deed, challenged respondent revenue officers objecting to construction of compound wall. Court restrained respondents from preventing land use without notice and hearing as per Section 3 of AP Assigned Lands Act, 1977.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from objecting to or preventing petitioners from using or occupying the land without prior notice and hearing. Writ Petition disposed of at admission stage.

Smt. Cherukuri Nagendramma Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 15427 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The husband of the 1^st petitioner and the father of the 2^nd petitioner herein, who was no more, seems to have acquired land of an extent of Ac.0.70 cents initially through an irrevocable general power of attorney, dated 23.05.1992 executed by Sri Ogirala Adinarayana, S/o China Kotaiah. Subsequently, the wife of said Sri Adinarayana by name, Sambrajyam and her son Mastan Rao together executed a sale deed on 19.01.2006. Though the irrevocable general power of attorney refers to the extent of land,as Ac.0.70 cents only, the sale deed in its schedule described the extent as Ac.0.75 cents which the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that it is possibly due to a typographical error. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedakakani and the Revenue Inspector, Pedakakani are objecting to the petitioners raising a compound wall around the said land of Ac.0.70 cents. Hence, they came to institute this Writ Petition.

¶5

The land of Ac.0.70 cents situate in Survey No. 16/4 of Takkellapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal appears to have been granted by way of a patta by the State in favour of Sri Ogirala Adinarayana, S/o China Kotaiah of Takkellapadu Village. It no doubt contains a clause against alienation, but however, the respondents cannot, without taking recourse to law, object to the petitioners either possessing or enjoying the land acquired by them by way of a registered sale deed

¶6

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue points out that Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, actually prohibits transfer of assigned lands and

¶7

sub-section (2) thereof injuncts landless poor persons from transferring assigned lands and at the same time, also puts an embargo on persons acquiring such assigned land either by way of purchase, gift or lease or mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

¶8

But however, it must be noticed that the consequences of breach of provisions contained in Section 3 cannot be resorted to without issuing a notice to the person concerned and interested and hearing his objections in that regard and passing a reasoned order thereafter. It is fundamental principle of law that no person should be impacted without providing him an opportunity of hearing to raise his objections for the proposed action. It is therefore, essential that before the consequences of alleged violation of Section 3 of the aforementioned Act are given effect to, the two petitioners herein should be put on notice and they should be provided a fair opportunity of hearing and then alone, an appropriate order can be passed.

¶9

Therefore, the respondents are restrained from either objecting to or preventing the petitioners from using or occupying the land acquired by them by way of a registered sale deed from the wife and son of late Sri Ogirala Adinarayana. In case, the respondents seek to give effect to the provisions of Section 3 of the 1977 Act, they shall do so by putting the petitioners on notice at the address, as reflected in the cause title herein, which reads as “House No. 10-7, Sowbhagyanagar, Opp. IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad”.

¶10

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission stage as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue consents for doing so. No costs.

¶11

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶12

Issue operative portion by wire.

¶13

9^th June 2011

¶14

ksld

Smt. Cherukuri Nagendramma v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Cherukuri Nagendramma v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Padmavathi, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sharmila Reddy Vs The District Collector

Medikonda Nageswara Rao Vs The sub Registrar, Singarayakonda

T. Prasad Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General

Siramdas Janaiah Vs The State of Ap Rep by its District Collector

R.S.Kumar Sankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh