Partly allowed

B.Sunkalamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jul 2018WP/26538/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the attempt to cancel a patta and evict the petitioner from land. The court found inconsistencies in the Tahsildar's affidavit and directed officials not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession except by following the procedure established by law.

What did the court decide?

Directed officials not to interfere with peaceful possession except by following procedure established by law.

B.Sunkalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

TH E H ON’BLE SRI J USTICE M.SEETH ARAMA MURTI

¶2

W RIT PETITION No.26538 of 20 16

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner requesting to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in trying to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the land of an extent of Ac.4.00 cents, in Survey No.84, situated in Tippayapalle Village, Orvakallu Mandal, Kurnool District, by cancelling the Patta bearing No.284 of the petitioner, at the instance of the respondents 4 to 6 and without following the procedure contemplated under law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. A consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, without following the due process of law, is also sought.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri B.Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (A.P.), appearing for the respondents 1 to 3; and of Sri J.Janaki Ram i Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6. I have perused the material record.

¶6

3. The case of the petitioner is this: ‘The husband of the petitioner was given the subject land under a patta, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers. After the death of her husband, she was given pattadar passbook; and, the property was mutated in her name in the revenue records. The same is evident from the copy of the pattadar passbook as well as the title deed book, 1 B. Namoona (ROR) and the copies of pahanies or adangals, which are also filed with the material papers. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the behest of the unofficial respondents, the official

¶7

¶8

W.P.No.26538 of 2016

¶9

MSRM, J

¶10

respondents are trying to evict her from the subject land, without following the procedure established by law.’

¶11

4 . Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Tahsildar, Orvakallu Mandal, Kurnool District, the 3^rd respondent herein, in the said counter, self contradictory statements were made. In the Counter, at one place, it is stated that till now, no notice is issued to the petitioner in the matter from the office of the 3^rd respondent and that the petitioner and her son are cultivating the land and that the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land. And, at another place in the counter affidavit, it is stated that since beginning, the land was not brought under cultivation by the petitioner and her husband and that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner is not in enjoyment over the land, but one Fouzia Bee is enjoying the land without any pattadar passbook and title deed. The very inconsistent and self-contradictory allegations in the counter affidavit show that the Government officers are not inclined to bring their correct stand to the notice of this Court. Be that as it may.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 4 to 6 and the learned counsel for the petitioner are in agreement that if the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, except by following the procedure established by law, the ends of justice would be met.

¶13

6 . Having regard to the facts and submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the official respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, except by following the procedure established by law.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.26538 of 2016

¶17

MSRM, J

¶18

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

¶19

stand closed.

¶20

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M.SEETH ARAMA MURTI, J

¶21

Date: 9^th July, 2018

MSRM, J

W.P.No.26538 of 2016

¶26

TH E H ON’BLE SRI J USTICE M.SEETH ARAMA MURTI

¶27

W RIT PETITION No.26538 of 20 16

¶28

Date: 9^th July, 2018

¶29

B.Sunkalamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sunkalamma 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

Samanthapudi Srinivasa Nagaraju Vs Kota Adinarayana

Lakshman Krishna Murthy S/o v.Krishna Murthy Vs The Government of Telangana

Kommineni Varaprasad, Vs The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary

P. Vijaya Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

Gadamsetty Veeranjeneyulu Vs Pokuru Ramaiah

Authorized Rep., M/S. Gsk Infrastructes, Secbad and Another Vs Spl. Chief Secretary, Municipal Admin., Hyd and 4 Others