Allowed

Pampana Satyamayana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023WP/12867/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 and I.A. under Section 151 CPC, the High Court addressed petitions challenging eviction proceedings without notice. The court held that evicting petitioners from the government land without issuing notice violated principles of natural justice and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following the due procedure of law, including issuing notice.

Pampana Satyamayana Vs The Government of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ' (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12867 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pampana Satyamayana, S/o. Suraya Narayana, Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture labour

¶9

Thatipamula Jaganadham, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶10

Kothuroju Samba Chary, S/o. Jaganadhaam, Aged 37 years, Occ: Agriculture labour,

¶11

Ramidi Satyamma, W/o. Rami Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture labour,

¶12

Epuri Srinu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 34 years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶13

Kolu Ganga Reddy, S/o. Samba Reddy, Aged 30^years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶14

Gadidala Muthilingam, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Daily labour work,

¶15

Guthula Srinvias, S/o. Satyam, Aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶16

Pampanna Ramesh, S/o. Surya Narayana, Aged 35^years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶17

l0.Dalishepuram Nagamani, Wo. Arun Kumar, Aged 45^years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶18

l l.Thompelli Nagamani, Wo. Srinvasa Rao, Aged 37^years, Occ: Agriculture labour,

¶19

12.Sangu Eshwara Rao,, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 40^years, Occ:^{Agriculture labour}

¶20

l3.Ramagiri Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Narsaiah,^{Aged 45 years,Occ:Agriculture} labour

¶21

14.Bad Mallamma, Wo. Vaikanna,^{Aged40 years, Occ: Agriculture labour}

¶22

'15. Banala Sarojini, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ: Agriculture labour

¶23

16.Mekala Naganuna, Wo.^{Kotaiah, Aged45 years'Occ: Agriculture labour}

¶24

l T.Anumalla Pullamma, W/o.^{Yadagiri, Aged50 years, Occ: Agriculture labour}

¶25

lB.Soma Narsamma,^{W/o.Narayana Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture} -.labour

¶26

Pampanna Madhu,, S/o. Surya^{Narayana,Aged 38 years, Occ:Agriculture} labour

¶27

Sama Rami Reddy, S/o. Ranga Reddy,^{Aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture} labour

¶28

Bolukonda Padml, W/o. Anthaiah, Aged 40^years, Occ: Agriculture^labour

¶29

22.BuriYakaiah,, S/o. Sailu, Aged 35^years, Occ: Agriculture^labour,

¶30

23.Tripurari lndira, W/o. Rama Chary, Aged 32^years, occ: Agriculture labour,

¶31

24.Mandala Srinu, S/o. Komraiah, Aged 32^years, Occ; agriculture labour, All the petitioners are Rl/o. Mondikunta Village, Hamlet of Nellipaka Village, ASwapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶32

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶33

AND

¶34

The Government of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶35

The Divisional Forest Officer,, Palavancha, Khamma District.

¶36

The Forest Range Officer,, Aswapuram, Khammam District.

¶37

The Mandal Level Forest Rights Committee,, Office of Thasidlar, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶38

Village Forest Rights Committee, Grampanchayat, Mondikunta, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndla praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring not to interfere with enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner action of the-respondent as highly arbitrary, illegal, without power and jurisdiction as well as violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.

¶41

I.A.NO:1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 15830 OF 2013)

¶42

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directing the respondent No.3 not to interfere the possession and enjoyment of the land situated at Mondikunta Village, Hamlet of Nellipaka Revenue Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.V.SREE RANGA RAO

¶44

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS

¶45

The C4rurt made the following ORDER

¶46

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶47

WRIT PETITION No.12867 of 2013

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This Writ Petition is ftled seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in interfering with the petitioners propert_v u,ithout issuing aly notice and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶50

Heard Ms K.Kar,ya, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri V. Sree Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶51

karned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are in occupation of small extent of land in Sy.No.190 situated at Mondikunta Village, Hamlet of Nellipaka Revenue Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District since long back and they have constructed houses and are residing in the said houses.

¶52

3.1. She further submits that the petitioners are paying house taxes to the respective Gram^panchayat of Mondikunta^{village and}

¶53

¶54

the respondents without issuing any notice tr,'ing to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property under the guise of proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District vide RC,No.A /374612OO8 dated 22.1 1.2OO8.

¶55

Per Contra, learned Government Pleader submits t'l-at the subject land belongs to the forest department and the petitioners have encroached the same and they are not having any right to claim the forest land.

¶56

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the record, it clearly reveals that the petitioners occupied the subject land in Sy.No.l9O situated at Mondikunta Village, Hamlet of Nellipaka Revenue Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District. As per the receipts issued by tl-e Mondikunta Village Gram panchayat it reveals that the petitioners are paying house tax to their respective houses. Though the petitioners occupied the Government lald, the respondents without issuing any notice they were intending to evict the petitioners from the property and it amounts to clear violalion of principles of natural justice.

¶57

¶58

In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed

¶59

of, directing respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without following due procedure of law.

¶60

7 Accordingly, the rvrit petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this u,rit petition, shall stand closed.

SD/.N.SRIHARI

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

b...---

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Forest, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶70

2 The Divisional Forest Office, Palavancha, Khamma District.

¶71

3 The Forest Range Officer, Aswapuram, Khammam District.

¶72

4 The Mandal Level Forest Rights Committee, Office of Thasidlar, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶73

1. The Village Forest Rights Committee, Grampanchayat, Mondikunta, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶74

1. Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS, High Courl for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶75

1. One CC to SRI.V.SREE RANGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies

¶76

SA SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412023

ORDER

WP.No.12867 ot 2013

.s
,r
d
tla ."+ lJ
C]
'>
s
,/
lil rt-

¶83

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶84

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶85

Cr"r4 5- t4t^a?

Pampana Satyamayana v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pampana Satyamayana v. The Government 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

Sri. Nagishettigari Kashiram Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Yellavula Paparao Vs The State of Telangana

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam Vs The Assistant Director of Fisheries and Ex-Officio Deputy

Nalluri Ramakrishna, Vs Government of a.P., repre., by its Principal Secretary

J. Subhash, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief

Bellamkonda Gattaiah, Vs Secy., Social Welfare dept., State of T.S.