Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5274 (AP)

KOYYA SATYA TRINATH REDDY v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/2335/2025 · 2025-02-03

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010042732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2335/2025 Between: Koyya Satya Trinath Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following order:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in dispossessing the Petitioner from the shop vide No.24 situated at Rythu Bazar, Kakinada, allotted to the Petitioner through proceedings vide Computer No.18946/2022, Dated 01.09.2022 by the 3rd Respondent without there being any notice or cancellation orders as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently extend the tenure of the shop allotted to the Petitioner vide orders Dated 01.09.2022 and issue such other writ or order or direction.…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The 3rd respondent basing on G.O.Ms.No.29 (Agriculture and Cooperation (AM-IV) Department) dated 16.02.2012, allotted a shop to the petitioner vide shop No.24 at Rythu Bazar, Kakinada, through proceedings vide Computer No.18946/2022 dated 01.09.2022, for a period of twelve months. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the guidelines prescribed under the aforesaid G.O. more particularly guideline No.3 (f) states that the 3 period of allotment for three years from the date of issue of order by the Joint Collector. 5. This Court feels that it is profitable to extract relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.02.2012. (f) Period of allotment:- Period of allotment shall not exceed 3 years from the date of issue of order by the Joint Collector. 6. The said clause divulges that period of allotment does not exceed three years and it cannot be interpreted that period of lease is three years. 7. However, the respondents are directed to follow the procedure, as established by law in this regard, before evicting the petitioner from the Shop No. 24 at Rythu Bazar, Kakinada. 8. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 03.02.2025 KBN 4 42 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2335 of 2025 Date: 03.02.2025 KBN