Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24175 (AP)

P. Kuppaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/17346/2025 · 2025-07-21

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010341372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17346/2025 Between: 1. P. KUPPAIAH,, S/O LATE P. MUDDUKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 22-12-87, RAJIV GANDHI COLONY, ERSTWHILE THIMMINAIDUPALEM PANCHAYAT, NOW WARD NO.2, TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 5. THE TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 8. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. I 9. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUCHANUR POLICE STATION TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 10. TIRUCHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents and their personnel without following due process of law interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of house property bearing Door No. 22-12-87, situated in Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Tirupati, Tirupati District as arbitrary, illegal and also against Principles of Natural Justice and Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner’s house property bearing Door No. 22-12-87, situated in Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Tirupati, Tirupati District pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KORAMUTLA SALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel representing Smt.K.Salini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1, 3, 7 & 8, and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 2, 3, 6 & 9. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 8 and 9 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the house property bearing Door No.22-12-87, Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Tirupati, without issuing any notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased two thatched houses under two unregistered sale deeds dated 03.09.1996 and 19.11.2004, and since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He would submit that the respondents 8 and 9, without issuing any notice, are interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the said property. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that the respondents 8 and 9 are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the subject property. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side directing the respondents 8 and 9 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the house property bearing Door No.22-12-87, Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Tirupati, without following due process of law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD