Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3556
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. SUJATHA, J
PETA ANJINAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 26702/2024
CH B R P SEKHAR, GP FOR REVENUE, A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP), O M R LAW FIRM
The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to disclose ongoing civil proceedings regarding property ownership, indicating an intention to obstruct execution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner's claim of peaceful possession over property challenged by third parties - Petitioner failed to disclose ongoing civil proceedings regarding property ownership - Court found no merit in petitioner's claims and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 47 - The petitioner did not file a complaint regarding the demolition of structures on the property, indicating wrongful intention to obstruct execution proceedings. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed peaceful possession of a property constructed by her late husband, but faced interference from third parties claiming ownership. The petitioner did not disclose ongoing civil litigation regarding the property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not established her claims and had not disclosed relevant civil proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues were the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim to peaceful possession and the disclosure of ongoing civil litigation affecting the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's failure to disclose ongoing civil proceedings undermined her claim to peaceful possession, and her actions indicated an intention to obstruct the execution of a court order.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER:-
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the House bearing No.D.No.12-4-785-7, constructed in an extent of 17 X 33 Sq.ft, or Ac.0.01-28 cents, in Sy.No.272-3C, situated at Aadharsh Nagar Colony, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District on the instigation of third parties is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the official respondent Nos.3 and 4, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of House bearing No.D.No.12-4-785-7, constructed in an extent of 17 X 33 Sq.ft, or Ac.0.01-28 cents, in Sy.No.272-3C, situated at Aadharsh Nagar Colony, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District…”
2. The case of the petitioner is that she along with her husband late Peta Rajappa, migrated to Ananthapuramu Town 22 years ago in search of daily wage work to eak out their livelihood. They were engaged in construction related activities such as building work and housekeeping etc. As the owners failed to provide adequate housing or shelter during the construction of the houses, her husband constructed a small hut near a drainage culvert to provide shelter for their family. On 14.03.2019 the petitioner’s husband died due to ill-health.
3. While the things stood thus, respondent No.3 visited their area to assess their living conditions over the past 22 years. After inquiring about her family and its status, respondent No.3 issued a possession certificate vide R.Dis.No.B/769/2017, Sy.No.272-3C, measuring 17x33 (0.01.28 Cents) located in Adharsha Nagar, Ananthapuramu. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any hindrances. But however, the third parties with the support of influential persons, associates and followers has been coming to the property and claiming the ownership over the subject property. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the official respondents have failed to take any action. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation has furnished a copy of written instructions, wherein in it is stated that in the LP.No.299/83, for the parts A and B, an open space allotted was Ac.1.54 cents, out of which 50 cents is covered by vanka, which is now used as drainage and on the side of the drainage, pattas were issued to 12 members by the Tahsildar office by mentioning the Sy.No272/3C. Further, the respondent office has communicated to the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu vide Rc.No.4587/2024/G1 Dated.02.12.2024 requesting to provide list of pattas issued in Survey No.272 and to ascertain the genuinity of pattas issued vide R.Dis.No.B/769/2017 Dated.17.10.2017 at Adarsh Nagar, Ananthapuramu and remarks regarding the above writ petitioner and also previous writs vide W.P.No.23789 of 2024 and 23790 of 2024 for taking necessary action in this regard and awaiting for reply. As the pattas were issued by the Revenue Officials i.e., O/o the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu concerned, the 4th respondent office holds no competence regarding the same.
6. The 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that the 5th respondent is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring an extent of 8.3 cents in Sy.No.272 in LP.No.299/83-B of Anantapuramu Town, Anantapuramu District. The 5th respondent filed O.S.No.125/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for directing the defendants to deliver possession by demolishing the structures present in the
