Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Naralasetti Tatarao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2309 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2309 AP
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Naralasetti Tatarao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 July, 2021
         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                     W.P.No.21952 of 2020

ORDER:

It is the case of the petitioner that he was in possession of

Ac.0.12 cents of land in Sy.No.88/5 of Vompolu Village,

Mungapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on account of the

fact that the father of the petitioner had purchased the said land

by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 26.10.1984. He submits

that he received notice dated 29.09.2020, said to have been

issued under Rule 15 of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions & Endowments Immovable Properties and Other

Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licenses

Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called the "Agricultural Land Rules") by

the 3rd respondent calling upon him to vacate the said land as

he was an encroacher and in unauthorised occupation of the

land.

2. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has now

approached this Court.

3. Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that notice has been issued under Rule 15 (1) &

(2) of the Agricultural Land Rules, which permit the 3rd

respondent to evict the petitioner even without approaching the

Endowment Tribunal as required under Section 83 of the

Endowment Act, 1987. She submits that these Rules have been

struck down by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment

dated 04.07.2018 in W.P.No.34361 of 2016 and batch. She 2 RRR,J W.P.No.21952 of 2020

submits that as the said Rules themselves are not on the statute

book, no further action can be taken on the basis of the said

notice and the said notice would have to be quashed.

4. The 3rd respondent had filed a counter stating that

the land had been handed over by the petitioner to the 3rd

respondent on 19.11.2020, and as such, nothing survives in the

writ petition.

5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner,

denying his signature on the "Bhoomi Appaginta Patram" that

has been filed by the 3rd respondent with the vacate petition.

Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner would also

point out to certain discrepancies in the document. The

petitioner has also filed photographs along with the reply

affidavit showing that he was in possession of the land, as late

as, February, 2021.

6. Even though the proceedings of handing over of

possession, dated 19.11.2020 have been filed by the 3rd

respondent, the said proceedings do not appear to be credible

on account of the fact that the petitioner has approached this

Court on the very same day by way of the present writ petition.

It would be hard to understand as to why the petitioner, who is

said to have voluntarily handed over his land, would again

approach this Court by travelling to Vijayawada during Covid-19

pandemic and file the present writ petition. The said document

does not inspire confidence and cannot be the basis for any

decision by this Court.

                                 3                             RRR,J
                                               W.P.No.21952 of 2020




7. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

3rd respondent would submit that a perusal of the notice would

show that even though the notice is said to have been issued

under Rule 15 (2) & (3) of the Rules, the said notice does not

state that the petitioner would be evicted unilaterally. He would

submit that this notice may be treated as a notice under Section

83 of the Endowments Act, and liberty be given to the 3rd

respondent to initiate action in accordance with Section 83 of

the Endowment Act.

8. In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench dated

04.07.2018 in W.P.No.34361 of 2016 and batch, the present

writ petition is allowed setting aside the notice dated 29.09.2020

as it has been issued under a provision of Law, which is not in

existence. However, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to initiate

appropriate action, if he thought fit, to evict the petitioner by

following the procedure established by law and in accordance

with Section 83 of the Endowments Act, 1987. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

07th July, 2021
RJS
                          4                          RRR,J
                                     W.P.No.21952 of 2020




HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.No.21952 of 2020

07th July, 2021 RJS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter