Telangana High Court
WP/38981/2013 of N.Jayarami Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh. on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38981 OF 2013 Dated 31st December 2013 BETWEEN: N.Jayarami Reddy. …PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by its District Collector, Chittoor, and two others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.Ramachandra
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38981 OF 2013
Dated 31st December 2013
BETWEEN:
N.Jayarami Reddy.
…PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of A.P., rep.by its District Collector, Chittoor, and twoothers.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38981 OF 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondentNo.3 has been unduly interfering with the petitioner’s possession ofproperty bearing Door Nos.6-24 and 6-25 of Padmavathipuram GramPanchayat comprised in Survey No.234 of Tiruchanur, Tirupati (Rural)Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law.
The petitioner pleaded that he has purchased the subjectproperty under sale deed dated 11.04.2002 from a person, who wasallegedly granted ryotwari patta on 14.06.1989, that he has constructed two houses over the said property and been living therein,that respondent No.3 has been unduly interfering with his possessionby threatening to dispossess him by claiming that the land is vested inthe Government.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (AndhraArea), on instructions, submitted that as the Inam Deputy Tahsildardeclared the land as a part of ‘Peddacheruvu’ which consists ofAcs.113.67 ½ cents and that W.P.No.193 of 1993 filed against the saidorder was dismissed by this Court as far back as 09.11.1997, thepetitioner has been in unlawful possession of a part of the tank andthat the ryotwari patta on which he is placing reliance is a false andfabricated one.
If the petitioner is found in unlawful possession of the tank land,the respondents are certainly entitled to evict him. But before sucheviction is made, they shall follow due process of law. Unless a noticeunder Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905(“the Act” for short), is issued and an order under Section 6 of the Act ispassed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, therespondents cannot interfere with his possession.
In the above view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’spossession of the subject property unless an eviction order is passedafter following due process as indicated hereinabove. RespondentNo.3 is further directed to initiate the proceedings under the Act withinone month from the date of receipt of this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48435 of2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J