IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.
Chintapalli Jahnavi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 7462, 16830 of 2018
Decided On : 19-01-2023
Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act 2014 - Section 112 - Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme Formulation and Implementation Rules, 2015 - Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14 19(g) and 300A - Possession of Land - Property dispute - Jurisdiction of High Court to decided disputed question - Held, Court therefore does not wish to pronounce anything on merits of matter. All issues that are raised are left open for a decision by competent authority - Competent authority is therefore directed to look into claims of both sets of petitioners in terms of Act Rules framed there Land Pooling Scheme in year - Court is of the opinion that keeping the writ petition pending in these peculiar circumstances is not really warranted. Even otherwise, there are very seriously disputed questions of fact involved in these cases, starting with title to the property the execution of the sale deeds itself the possession etc. These cannot be decided in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ Petitions are Disposed of
ORDER :
1. Both these writ petitions were taken up for hearing together as common questions of fact and law arise in the same.
2. The land involved in these writ petitions is in Sy. Nos. 290 and 293 of Undavalli village.
3. The writ petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 (who are respondents 7 to 10 in WP. No. 16830 of 2018) claim to be the owners of the property having acquired the same under registered sale deeds.
4. The writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 claim to be original assignees/legal heirs of assignees, who were allotted the land in 1978 through DKT pattas. Both the parties are claiming title and possession to the same property.
5. The prayer in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 is as follows:
6. The prayer in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018 the prayer is as follows:
7. Very extensive arguments were advanced by Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 and Sri V.R.N. Prashanth for the unofficial respondents in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 and writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16830 of 2018. For the State, the Government Pleader argued the matters.
8. A reading of the prayers would also make it clear that both the parties want the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to be declared as illegal, void etc. Both the parties for their own reasons claim that this order has to be set aside.
9. It is also to be noted that the submissions of the petitioners in W.P. No. 7462 of 2018 is that after the enactment of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short ‘Act 11 of 2014’) and the A.P. Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2015 (for short ‘the Rules’) they have made an application for development
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Wherever there is no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent to the issuance of G.O.Ms., benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the parties who inten....
Authorities must prove land was assigned with non-alienation conditions to initiate resumption proceedings; failure to establish this invalidates the actions taken.
The court affirmed that the assignment of land to ex-servicemen and their legal heirs is protected under government orders, allowing for ownership claims despite administrative disputes.
Assigned land sold in auction by Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society is ceased to be assigned land on its sale.
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.
Point of Law- Several illegal transactions were taken place in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended in Act 8 of 2007. Hence....
Section 4(1)(b)(ii), but the Government raised a plea that the petitioners are not entitled to restore the land in view of the amendment of Section 4 by Act No.8 of 2008.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.