Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31501/2024 of BAVIREDDY RANGA REDDY Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 31501 OF 20?d . AMARAVATI RAO Between: Bavireddy Ranga Reddy, S/o. Bavireddy Subba Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::(Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOURPRESENT
AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARRAOWRIT PETITION NO: 31501 OF 20?d.
Between:
Bavireddy Ranga Reddy, S/o. Bavireddy Subba ReddyAged about 65years, R/o H.No.5-80, Near Sivalayam, Gadivemula Villageand Mandal,Nandyal District - 518 508 (Erstwhile Kurnool District)
...PETITIONER
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary,Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, SecretariatBuildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, SecretariatBuildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. Commissioner of Panchyat Raj and Rural DevelopmentAndhraPradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District.Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District.
3. Gadivemula Gram Panchayat, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary,Gadivemula Mandal, Nandyal District.Gadivemula Mandal, Nandyal District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying that inthe circumstances statedim the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^' Respondent ininterfering with the possession of the petitioners land and trying to lay C.C.road in the land admeasuring Ac.2-57 cents in Sy.No.222/1, Ac.0-08 centscentsinin Sy.No.222/2,^ Ac.0-67 centsin Sy.No.290 and Ac.0-20Sy.No.293/1 totalling to Ac.3-52 cents situated in Gadivemula Village andMandal,NandyalDistrict(erstwhileKurnoolDistrict)iswhollyillegal,arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21and 300-A of the Constitution of /
India and consequently declare that the Respondents are not entitled to layany road in the aforementioned land belonging to the petitioner herein.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleasedtodirect the Respondentsnottointerfere withthepetitionerspossession of land admeasuring Ac.2-57 centsin Sy.No.222/1,[Ac.0-08]centsin Sy.No.222/2, Ac.0-67 centsin Sy.No.290 and Ac.0-20 centsinSy.No.293/1 totalling to Ac.3-52 cents situated in Gadivemula Village andMandal, Nandyal District (erstwhile Kurnool District) and[ furtherdirect][ the]respondents not to lay any CC road in the aforementioned land belongingto the petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. MADHAVI LATHA KATASANICounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ &RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. VIDYA SAGAR,[Advocate]representing SRI M. SUDHIR, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYATThe Court made the following: ORDER
i
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.31501 of 2024
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:
Thepresent WritPetitionisfiledunderArticle 226oftheConstitution of India for the following relief; "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly[one][ in][ the]natureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the3^’^ Respondentininterfering with the possession of the petitioner s[land][ and][ trying][ ot]layC.C.roadinthelandadmeasuringAc.2-57centsinSy.No.222/1, Ac.0-08centsinSy.No.222/2, Ac.0-67centsinSy.No.290 and Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.293/1 totallingto Ac.3-52cents situated in Gadivemula Village and Mandal, Nandyal[District](erstwhile Kurnool District) is wholly illegal, arbitrary[and][ violative][ of]Article14,21and300-AoftheConstitutionofIndiaandconsequently declare that the Respondents are not entitled[to][ lay]any roadin the aforementioned land belonging to thepetitionerherein and pass such other orders"
2. The relief sought in the present Writ Petitionis[to][ declare][ the]action of the 3"^ respondent in interfering with’ the[possession][ of][ the]petitioner’s land and trying to lay C.C. road in the[land][ admeasuring]Acs.2.57 cents in Sy.No.222/1, Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No.222/2,[Ac.0.67]centsin Sy.No.290 and Ac.0.20centsin Sy.No.293/1totallingtoAcs.3.52 cents situated in Gadivemula Village and Mandal,[Nandyal]
District.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would[submit][ that]the petitioner is inherited the subject property from[his][ ancestors][ and]the respondents are laying road in the said land without[following][ the]procedure as established by law.
4. Sri Vidya Sagar, learned counsel representingSri M.Sudheer,learned Standing Counsel for the 3'''^ respondent would[submit][ that][ the]petitioner herein has sold away the subject property to some third partyand heis not in the possession of the property and the respondentshave laid road in an extent of 90 metres.Learned counsel would furthersubmitthatthepetitioner hasnot statedintheaffidavitaboutthealienation of the property to the third party and he has suppressed thesaid fact.learned Standing Counsel for the 3'''^ respondent would[submit][ that][ the]petitioner herein has sold away the subject property to some third partyand heis not in the possession of the property and the respondentshave laid road in an extent of 90 metres.Learned counsel would furthersubmitthatthepetitioner hasnot statedintheaffidavitaboutthealienation of the property to the third party and he has suppressed thesaid fact.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has admittedthatthe petitioner has alienated some property to third parties, however,it isstatedthatthepetitionerhasretainedsomepropertyandtherespondents are laying roadin the retained property belongsto thepetitioner without following due process of law.the petitioner has alienated some property to third parties, however,it isstatedthatthepetitionerhasretainedsomepropertyandtherespondents are laying roadin the retained property belongsto thepetitioner without following due process of law.
6. As can be seen from the material placed before this Court, thereis a dispute with regard to the ownership of the subject property. As therespondents are disputing the title of the petitioner over the subjectproperty, the petitioner is hereby permitted to make a representationbefore the respondent concerned within a period of[one] week[ from][ the]date of receipt of a copy of this order along with documents establishinghistitle over theproperty,and,onfilingsuchrepresentation,therespondents are hereby directed to examine the said representation andpass appropriate orders within a period of three (3)[weeks][ and]if thesubject property belongs to the petitioner, the respondents[are][ directed]not to proceed against the petitioner’s property without following dueprocess of law, further the respondents are hereby[directed][ not][ to][ take]is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the subject property. As therespondents are disputing the title of the petitioner over the subjectproperty, the petitioner is hereby permitted to make a representationbefore the respondent concerned within a period of[one] week[ from][ the]date of receipt of a copy of this order along with documents establishinghistitle over theproperty,and,onfilingsuchrepresentation,therespondents are hereby directed to examine the said representation andpass appropriate orders within a period of three (3)[weeks][ and]if thesubject property belongs to the petitioner, the respondents[are][ directed]not to proceed against the petitioner’s property without following dueprocess of law, further the respondents are hereby[directed][ not][ to][ take]
any coercive steps against the subject property till the disposal of therepresentation.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.Thereshall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending,if any,shall stand closed.
SD/- V. SAVITHRI GOWRIASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
b
SECTON OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings,Velagapudi, Guntur District.Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings,Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner of Panchyat Raj and Rural Development,[Andhra]Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District.Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District.
3. The Panchayat Secretary, Gadivemula Gram Panchayat, GadivemulaMandal, Nandyal District.Mandal, Nandyal District.
4. One CC to M/s. Madhavi Latha Katasani, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri M. Sudhir, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat[OPUC] Panchayat[OPUC]6. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
7. Three CD Copies.
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:31/12/2024
ORDERWP.No.31501 of 2024
*0 9 JAN 2025^ . Current Section.
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS