Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Smt. Maddirallanaramma, on 1 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Appeal No.551 of 2021
and
Writ Appeal No.624 of 2021
(Through physical mode)
W.A.No.551 of 2021
The District Forest Officer,
Kadapa District & another. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Guntur District & others. ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : G.P. for Forest
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 : Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao
W.A.No.624 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Velagapudi, Guntur District & others. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt.Maddiralla Naramma,
W/o.Baya Reddy, age 63 years,
Devaravandlapalli, T. Sakibanda Village,
Chinnamandyam Mandal,
Kadapa District. ... Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : G.P. for Forest
Counsel for respondent : Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 01.12.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
As both the appeals are interconnected, they are heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.A.No.551 of 2021 is directed against an interim order dated
08.03.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5418 of 2021
directing maintenance of status-quo on the subject land, while
W.A.No.624 of 2021 arises out of an interim order dated 19.07.2021
passed in W.P.No.13859 of 2021, whereby interim direction as prayed for
by the writ petitioner therein was granted in view of the interim order
passed in W.P.No.5418 of 2021.
3. There appears to be dispute as to the location or identity of the
land, which is stated to be in possession of the writ petitioners.
4. While the learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the
appellants, by referring to the Joint Inspection Report, would contend that
the writ petitioners are not in physical possession of the subject land,
learned counsel for the writ petitioners would draw our attention to
Pattadar Adangal (cultivation account) showing that the writ petitioners
are in cultivating possession over the subject land, as noted in Column
Nos.12 and 13 thereof.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders passed as an interim
measure, without deciding any material issue between the parties, are not
required to be interfered at this stage. It is also to be noted that any
finding of the writ appellate court on the material issue which is yet to be
adjudicated before the learned single judge, would affect the adjudication
before the learned single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned interim orders. However, all the issues raised
by both parties, both factual or legal, shall remain open to be raised
before the learned single Judge.
6. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
HS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.A.Nos.551 and 624 of 2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt: 01.12.2021
HS
