SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3989

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA
K. Subramanyam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 21604/2019



APHC010451072019 IINN TTHHEE HHIIGGHH CCOOUURRTT OOFF AANNDDHHRRAA PPRRAADDEESSHH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, TTHHEE TTWWEENNTTYY SSEECCOONNDD DDAAYY OOFF JJAANNUUAARRYY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT TTHHEE HHOONNOOUURRAABBLLEE SSRRII JJUUSSTTIICCEE NNIINNAALLAA JJAAYYAASSUURRYYAA WRIT PETITION No: 21604 of 2019 Between:

1. KK.. SSUUBBRRAAMMAANNYYAAMM,, SS//OO.. KKAADDIIRRAAPPPPAA,, AAGGEEDD AABBOOUUTT 4488 YYEEAARRSS,, RR//oo.. RRAAMMAAPPUURRAAMM VVIILLLLAAGGEE,, KKOOLLAAMMAADDUUGGUU,, SSHHAANNTTHHIIPPUURRAAMM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. JANARDHAN, S/o. SESHAYYA NAYUDU, AGED AABBOOUUTT 3300 YYEEAARRSS,, RR//OO.. RRAAMMAAPPUURRAAMM VVIILLLLAAGGEE,, KKOOLLAAMMAADDUUGGUU,, SSHHAANNTTHHIIPPUURRAAMM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

3. PP.. MMAANNJJUULLAA,, WW//oo.. PP.. GGAAJJEENNDDRRAA RREEDDDDYY,, AAGGEEDD AABBOOUUTT 4466 YYEEAARRSS,, RR//oo..SSHHAANNTTHHIIMMAADDUUGGUU,, KKOOLLAAMMAADDUUGGUU MMAANNDDAALL,, CCHHIITTTTOOOORR DISTRICT.

4. KARTHIGA.R, W/o. D. VAMSI, AGED ABOUT 2288 YYEEAARRSS,, RR//OO.. 44-40/1, GANDLA STREET, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. A. SHANKARAPPA, S/o.. AA.. VVEENNKKAATTAAPPPPAA,, AAGGEEDD AABBOOUUTT 5555 YYEEAARRSS,, RR//OO.. AAMMMMAAVVAARRIIPPEETTAA VVIILLLLAAGGEE,, SSHHAANNTTHHIIPPUURRAAMM MMAANNDDAALL,, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

......PPEETTIITTIIOONNEERR((SS))

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RREEPP.. BBYY IITTSS PPRRIINNCCIIPPAALL SSEECCRREETTAARRYY,, RREEVVEENNUUEE DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT,, SSEECCRREETTAARRIIAATT BBUUIILLDDIINNGGSS,, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, SHANTHIPURAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.

6. AZISTA INDUSTRIES LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI KESAVA REDDY, AMMAVARIPETA PLANT, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. Mr.PRAKASH.C Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. Mr.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

3. Mr.O MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following Order:

The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from the subject matter lands without following due process of Law and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential directions.

2. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners’ case, in brief, is that the lands in question were assigned by granting D-Form Pattas and the 4th respondent issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the same. While setting out the details of the extents of lands and the survey numbers, they further state that in the year 2002, for the purpose of M/s.Tidel Silk Technology, Hyderabad, the Government sought to acquire the subject matter lands, but due to change of the Government, no action was taken and thereafter in 2017, for the purpose of establishing an Airport, the land in possession of the petitioners was sought to be resumed, but no work was started, except conduct of survey. It is also their case that they are raising seasonal crops like groundnut, jowar, pulses etc., by digging bore-wells and availing electricity supply. While that being the position, without acquiring the subject lands and paying compensation to the petitioners, the respondents demolished a part of the houses constructed by the petitioners and highhandedly sought to evict them from the subject matter lands without issuing any notice or following the due process of law and in the said circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the action of the respondent-authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject matter lands, which are in their possession is wholly unsustain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top