Tammisetti Gangadhara Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/7794/2020 · 2025-03-05
T C D Sekhar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11067 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11067 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010127872020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7794/2020 Between: Tammisetti Gangadhara Rao, ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following Order:
2
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No. 70/3 of Tadikalapudi Village in Kamavarapukota Mandal of West Godavari District, which was assigned in favor of the petitioner by the 4th respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted D-form patta over the land aforementioned on 28.03.2001 vide proceeding in L.D No.251/1410/01. It is further contended that since the date of grant of patta, he is in uninterrupted possession of the land and eking out his livelihood by raising seasonal crops. Pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued by the respondents in his favour by mutating his name in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there are lemon trees aged about 10 years are existing over the land in dispute and except the said land, he does not have any other source of income. 3. It is further contended that while so, the 4th respondent started visiting the land of the petitioner and conducted a survey by making certain markings. When the same was questioned by
3
the petitioner, the 4th respondent replied that the subject land is required for “Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu Scheme”. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 4th respondent without issuing notice, directed the petitioner to vacate from the subject land and in fact, he visited the subject land on 10.03.2020 and tried to dispossess him. As no notice was issued to the petitioner before taking any action in the matter, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No. 70/3 of Tadikalapudi Village in Kamavarapukota Mandal of West Godavari District. He also filed the pattadar passbook issued by the 4th respondent over the subject land in support of his claim. From the above documents, it is clear that the petitioner is in possession of the land assigned to him. Though the respondents proposed to resume the land of the petitioner for “Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu Scheme”, no notice is issued to the petitioner. This Court while ordering
4
notice, on 20.03.2020, passed interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. The said interim order is subsisting as on today. 8. Further, the learned Government Pleader submitted across the bar that, the scheme proposed under “Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu Scheme” is no longer in existence. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not issued any notice before taking any action in the matter. Since the interim order is in operation, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following due process of law. This order will not preclude the authorities in initiating any action against the petitioner if the subject land is required for public purpose in future. In the said event, the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner and proceed there from, in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________________
JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 05.03.2025 SSCCHH
5
97 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.7794 of 2020
05.03.2025 SSCCHH