Allowed

Tayappa S/o. Eeranna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jul 2015WP/22335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition setting aside a notice issued by a Gram Panchayat directing the petitioner to remove illegal encroachments, holding that the notice lacked essential details and failed to mention the opportunity of hearing. The court directed the authority to issue a fresh notice with proper details and an opportunity to explain before taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice was set aside. The petitioner is entitled to a fresh notice containing essential details of the property and an opportunity to submit an explanation before further coercive steps a

Tayappa S/o. Eeranna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 22335 of 2015

¶4

Between: Tayappa

¶5

… Petitioner and

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.07.2015

¶9

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether his Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 22335 of 2015

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioner claims to be a resident of Dodi Village, Kosigi Mandal, Kurnool District. In the year 2012 Government granted house patta in his favour vide proceedings Rc.B.503/01, dated 05.01.2012. On such allotment, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing fencing around the open site and a thatched hut. While so on 24.06.2015, on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, notice was issued directing the petitioner to remove the illegal encroachments on the Gram Panchayat land. Aggrieved thereby, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sanctioned house site patta by the competent authority and since then he is in occupation and enjoyment of the same and he is not in illegal occupation of Gram Panchayat land. He further submits that though notice was issued on 24.06.2015 no reasons and details are mentioned and that no prior opportunity was given before issuing the notice directing the petitioner to vacate the Gram Panchayat land.

¶16

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that though the matter was earlier adjourned for obtaining instructions, he could not obtain instructions.

¶17

4. It is not in dispute that the impugned notice does not contain the essential details and there is no reference to the effect that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing before issuing the said notice.

¶18

5. A bare perusal of the impugned notice would go to show that it does not contain the details of the land, in which the petitioner is

¶19

in illegal occupation and the said land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, house plot was assigned to the petitioner in the year 2012. Under the guise of said assignment, whether the petitioner is in illegal occupation of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat or not is required to be specifically stated before taking coercive action against the petitioner. Therefore, the order is not sustainable on the ground of no opportunity of hearing and that it does not contain essential details when order seeks to take coercive action against the petitioner. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, if the Gram Panchayat is of the opinion that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, it is open to the Gram Panchayat to issue fresh notice to the petitioner by giving essential details of the property and take further steps in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation to the said notice. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶21

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶22

JULY 20, 2015 YVL

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 22335 of 2015

¶25

Dt: 20.07.2015

¶26

YVL

Tayappa S/o. Eeranna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tayappa S/o. Eeranna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Konduboina Srinivasulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Mutturu Bhasker Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Alluri Narayana, S/o. Ashirvadam, Aged 50 years, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sugunamma, Vs The State of Telangana

R.Prashanti Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vonteddu Linga Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana