High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 10 AP CK 0007

Ravalakolli Sai vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 7 October 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.Suresh Reddy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 32840 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 646 words

K.Suresh Reddy, J

1.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of respondent No.3 in attempting to dispossess the petitioner under guise of Notice vide Rc.A 257/2014 dated 17.09.2022 from schedule Zink roofed house property and cement well rings work shed to an extent of 0.76.3 Square yards situated in Sy sub division 3 at D.No. 4-140, GNT Road, Opp: Mahadevanagar, Sulluripeta Municipality, Sulluripeta Mandal, Tirupati New (SPSR Nellore Old) District without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.09.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice besides articles 14, 19, 21 and 301 of Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently directed to suspend the operation of Respondent No.3 Notice vide Rc.A 257/2014 dated 17.09.2022 by not to dispossess from schedule Zink roofed house property and cement well rings work shed to an extent of 0.76.3 Square yards situated in D.No. 4-140, GNT Road, Opp: Mahadevanagar, Sulluripeta Municipality, Sulluripeta Mandal, Tirupati New (SPSR Nellore Old) District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2.

Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

3.

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier his father filed writ petition i.e. W.P.No.6106 of 2014. One Sri Duggisetty Venkata Subba Rao also filed W.P.No.2411 of 2022 before this Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order of this Court. The operative portion of the common order passed by this Court reads as follows:-

“11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cases, material available on record and submissions of both the learned counsel and with their consent, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner in W.P.No.2411 of 2022 by giving notice and opportunity of being heard to both parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and intimate the same to the petitioner in W.P.No.2411 of 2022. Till such exercise is completed, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps in relation to the property of the petitioner in W.P.No.6106 of 2014 situated in Door No.4/140, GNT Road, Opposite Mahadevaiah Nagar, Sulluripeta Municipality, Sulluripeta Mandal, PSR Nellore District. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.”

4.

Now the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the proposed action of eviction by the respondent No.3 by issuing a notice dated 17.09.2022 to the father of the petitioner.

5.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions states that the father of the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 17.09.2022 and stated that he will remove the encroachment.

6.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the property in question was given to the petitioner under a registered settlement deed, dated 10.01.2019 in favour of the petitioner and as such the father of the petitioner has no right in the said property.

7.

In that view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to offer his explanation within a period of two (02) weeks from today. On receipt of such explanation, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.