MEDISETTY SANKARA RAO v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/6654/2020 · 2025-03-05
T C D Sekhar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9802 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9802 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010108442020
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: 6654/2020 Between: Medisetty Sankara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4-77 cents in Sy.No.322/3 of Kunchangi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following the due process of law. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was assigned lands above mentioned on 01.09.1989 videD.R.No.2 of 99. Subsequent tothe said assignment, his name was also mutated in the revenue records by issuing pattadar passbooks. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that since the date of assignment, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and he is eking-out livelihood by cultivating the same. He further contends that he obtained electricity connection also. While so, the 3rd respondent and his staff tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject lands as the same is required for “land pulling scheme” and asked the petitioner to vacate from the lands assigned. 4. In that regard,anotice said to have been issued by the 3rd respondent calling for objections, if any,to which the petitioner gave a representation/objections under Form-II on 04.03.2020, stating that he is a physically challenged person and the land assigned to him is the only source
of his livelihood. He further contends that if the land is utilized for the public purpose, the same has to be done in accordance with law. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite filing objections dated 04.03.2020, without passing any orders on the same, the 3rd respondent is interfering with the possession of the petitioners. 6. While ordering notice, this Court,on 17.03.2020, granted interim order directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.4-77 Cents in Sy.No.322/3 of Kunchangi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law. 7.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the documents enclosed, it is clear that though the notice was issued to the petitioner, thereafter, the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders thereon and tried to dispossess the petitioner on the premise that the same is required for allotting house-sites to the landless poor. 9. It is needless to mention whenever the land is required for public purpose, unless the procedure contemplated under law is followed and resumption order is passed, the respondents especially the 3rd respondent cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 10. In the instant case, nothing is placed on record to show that the 3rd respondent has passed resumption order against the petitioner so far. 11. As already noted supra, this Court, while ordering the notice on 17.03.2020, passed an interim order directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 12. In that view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law, if they intend to resume the lands of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard. It is needless to mention, till such time, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject lands. 13. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
05.03.2025 LSP
60
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 6654/2020 05.03.2025 LSP