Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Dec 2004
- Bench
- N V RAMANA
Outcome
Dismissed
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting to vacate the petitioner from the house property bearing D.No. 1-4-473/D/1 situated in about 275 sq yards of site in Hameed Nagar of Tirupathi Town and Urban Mandal is illegal, irregular and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and also the provisions of AP Muncipalities Act and AP Land Encroachment Act and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess him from the said property. Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.SATYANARAYANA NIMMAGADDA Counsel for Respondent No.1 : G.P. FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.I.NEWTON, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
ORDER:
Operative part
The petitioner, who is a Government Employee, states that his father occupied an extent of 275 square yards of government poramboke land in Hameednagar, Tirupati Town, which was assigned Door No. 1-4-473/D/1, and that similarly, his neighbourgs also occupied various extents. The petitioner states that in the said land, they constructed a thatched hut, and that it was destroyed in a fire accident, and thereafter, he constructed a house with zinc roof. While so, the petitioner states that when Tirupati Urban Development Authority and Superintendent of Juvenile Observation Home, Tirupati, attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment, he filed suits in O.S. Nos. 798 of 2000 and 1195 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for perpetual injunction and obtained decrees on 10-11-2003 and 28-11-2001. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents without issuing any notice are trying to evict him from the land in question. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Municipality. According to the own admission of the petitioner, his father occupied the land in question, which is a government poramboke, and constructed house and is living therein. Since the petitioner is claiming to be in occupation of the government poramboke land for the last 40 years, and also claims to have obtained decrees from competent civil Court when Tirupati Urban Development Authority and the Superintendent of Juvenile Observation Home, Tirupati, any eviction of the petitioner from the land in question, shall only be after following the due process of law contemplated under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for eviction. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. If the respondents have already followed the due process of law in the matter, they are at liberty to take steps to evict the petitioner from the land in question. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 23-12-2004 To ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER 1 Mandal Revenue Officer (Urban), Tirupathi (M), Chittoor District. 2 Commissioner, Tirupathi Muncipality, Tirupathi (M), Chittoor District.
2 CCs to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).
2 CD copies
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 dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; AP Muncipalities Act; AP Land Encroachment Act; Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Dec 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
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.