Petitioner challenged alleged interference with land possession by respondents. Revenue authority instructed that no such interference or sign-board existed. Dismissed as misplaced.
No further orders necessary; writ petition disposed of. Miscellaneous applications closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.P. NO. 6349 OF 2014
Date of Judgment: 7.7.2014
Between:
Sri Ommi Dali Naidu
…Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
..Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
W.P. NO. 6349 OF 2014
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.8-44 cents of land in Sy.No. 38/1 to 8 situated at Rushikonda village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and district. This writ petition is filed on the allegation that the respondents 2 and 3 were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the aforesaid land. It is stated that on 15.3.2012 the petitioner made a representation to third respondent to conduct survey and fix boundaries and paid necessary fee. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No.
30714 of 2012 complaining inaction of the said respondent, whereupon this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner’s application to be considered and disposed of within four weeks. The petitioner alleges that because of his approaching this Court, the respondents displayed a sign-board on 25.10.2013 on the land showing as if it is a Government land. The petitioner states that he had given two representations dated 26.10.2013 and 27.2.2014 to third respondent to remove the said sign-board, however, no action was taken. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that the aforesaid land is in possession of the petitioner and that the revenue authorities have never interfered with the possession of the petitioner nor erected any sign-board over the said land.
In view of the aforesaid specific instructions, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents 2 and 3 were interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid land and put a sign-board is clearly misplaced. Hence no further orders are necessary to be passed in this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 7.7.2014 KR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant relief regarding alleged interference with possession of land by respondents.
Whether allegations of government sign-board placement are supported by revenue authority instructions.
Sri Ommi Dali Naidu
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
