Smt.Kolupuri Laxmi, Visakhapatnam v. The Government of A.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Jul 2010
- Bench
- B SESHASAYANA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 226
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2849 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt Kolupuri Laxmi seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of Ac.3.85 cents of dry S.No.157/1 of Kommadi Village of Visakhapatnam District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims that the Government of Andhra Pradesh assigned Ac.3.85 cents of dry land in S.No.157/1 of Kommadi Village of Visakhapatnam District in the name of her husband in the year 1983. Her husband was in possession of the land pursuant to the assignment. After the death of her husband, she along with her children has been in occupation of the land assigned to her husband. She submitted an application dated 30.12.2005 for regularization of the land in her occupation in view of G.O.Ms.No.1601, dated 29.8.2005. As the respondents are contemplating to dispossess her from the land in her occupation, she approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government assigned Ac.3.85 cents of dry land in S.No.157/1 of Kommadi Village of Visakhapatnam District in favour of husband of the petitioner, and, after the death of her husband, she has not been in occupation and enjoyment of the assigned land. The petitioner made an application dated
30.12.2005 for regularization of the land in her occupation and the said application is pending consideration with respondents. Per contra, learned Government Pleader Revenue submits that no document has been placed by the petitioner to speak of the assignment land by the Government in favour of the husband of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. A fact remains that the petitioner submitted application to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam-2nd respondent regularization of the land in her occupation in view of G.O.Ms.No.1601, Revenue (Asn.I) Department, dated
Operative part
29.8.2005 and her application is stated to be pending consideration. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam to consider the representation dated 30.12.2005 submitted by petitioner accordance rules/guidelines/instructions in force and pass appropriative orders. Till the disposal of the representation dated
30.12.2005 submitted by the petitioner, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. No costs. Date:13.7.2010 _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 21, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 13 Jul 2010. The bench was B SESHASAYANA REDDY.
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.