Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kamar Jahan Begum vs Gandrala Jamalaiah on 26 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEAL No.524 of 2021
(Hybrid Hearing Through video conferencing)
Kamar Jahan Begum,
W/o. Late Mehboob Subhani Khan,
Aged 60 years, R/o. Kaikaluru Canal Road,
Kaikaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District,
and others. .. Appellants
Versus
Gandrala Jamalaiah S/o. Moshe,
Aged 51 years, Occ: Journalist,
R/o. 3-59/1, Danagudem Road,
Kaikaluru Village, Krishna District,
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. D.V. Sasidhar
Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. K.V. Aditya Chowdary
Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 : GP for Revenue
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 26.10.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the learned
single Judge in W.P.No.5667 of 2021, the appellants preferred the present
appeal.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein
seeking a direction to the authorities to deliver possession of plots bearing
Nos.27, 29 and 30 in R.S.No.441 of Kaikaluru Village and Mandal, Krishna
District, which were stated to have been allotted to them. Taking note of the
2 HCJ & AVSS,J
W.A.No.524 of 2021
submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that steps
were being taken for delivery of possession of the said plots and that there
were certain encroachments over the said plots, for removal of which
appropriate action was proposed, the learned single Judge, by the order
under appeal, directed the Tahsildar, Kaikaluru Mandal, to remove the
encroachments and deliver the possession of the property in accordance
with law.
3. Aggrieved by the said direction, the appellants, who were third parties
to the writ petition, preferred this writ appeal by seeking leave to appeal,
which was granted vide order dated 18.08.2021. It is the case of the
appellants that they have been in possession of the subject plots since long
time and that they have submitted representations for regularization of their
possession and without considering their representations, the subject plots
were allotted in favour of the writ petitioners. It is also their case that they
have earlier filed W.P.No.3713 of 2020 before this Court, challenging the
action of the authorities in interfering with their possession of the subject
plots pending consideration of their representations for regularization and
the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2020, directing
the authorities to dispose of their representations.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
5. It is to be noted that the subject plots, which are stated to have been
encroached upon by the appellants, were allotted to the writ petitioners by
the Government and when possession of the subject plots was not handed
over to the writ petitioners, they filed the writ petition in which a direction
for delivery of possession was issued. If the appellants claim that they are
entitled for regularization of their occupation of the subject plots, they have
3 HCJ & AVSS,J
W.A.No.524 of 2021
to take recourse to appropriate remedy in that regard and their claim cannot
be adjudicated in this appeal arising out of an order passed in the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioners. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, we
observe that the authorities shall follow the procedure prescribed under law
in removing the encroachments over the subject plots.
6. With the above observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
Status quo order granted on 26.08.2021 shall stand vacated. No costs.
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ A.V. SESHA SAI, J
IBL
