Writ Petition No. 3427 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226, 300(A)
- Estate Abolition Act, 1948 s. 11(A)
Judgment
Between: K.Suresh Babu S/o.K.Srinivasulu R/o.18-1-30(E), K.T.Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Tirupathi (Rural), Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi , Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner peaceful position and enjoyment of the schedule property in survey No. 211 of an extent of Ac.7.38 cents situated at Dominedu Village, Tirupathi (Rural Mandal), Chittoor District, without any right over the schedule property and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300 (A) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to not to interfere into the schedule property and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 3427 of 2008 Order: The petitioner states that his forefathers were in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.7.38 cents situated in Survey No.211 of Dominedu village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, and after the death of his father, the petitioner has succeeded the said property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner states that based on the application made by him, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, after conducting detailed enquiry, has granted Ryotwari Patta, under Section 11(A) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, in Proceedings SR No.4/11(a)/83/CTR, dated 24.01.1983, in his favour in respect of the said land, and by virtue of the said patta he became absolute owner of the land in question.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, are trying to interfere with his possession over the land in question. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. When the matter is taken up for admission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 16243 of 2004, dated 13.09.2004, wherein this Court considered similar issue and held thus: “Once the ryotwari patta is granted in favour of the petitioner, he is entitled to cultivate the land over the extent for which ryotwari patta is granted. Unless the said patta is cancelled, the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner, without following the due procedure that too without issuing any notice.
Operative part
Hence, the petitioner cannot be deprived of from the property, which he is entitled to under the ryotwari patta. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.” Hence, following the said judgment, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: In the event the respondents intend to take any action of canceling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, they shall do so only after following the due process of law and giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Till then, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 24.04.2008 Nsr
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226, 300(A); Estate Abolition Act, 1948 — s. 11(A).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.