Giddaluru Krishnaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 955 AP

             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                          MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.3816 of 2022
                                  PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                          Office
                                               ORDER

No DATE Note

3. 22.02.2022 RRR, J The 1st petitioner claims possession over Ac.2.00 cents of land in Sy.No.207 of Machavaram Village, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District on the basis of Yeksal Patta said to have been granted on 31.07.1986. The 3rd petitioner claims ownership over Ac.2.00 cents of this survey number on the basis of DKT patta said to have been issued on 25.06.1999. The other petitioners, who do not set out their source of title or possession claim to be in possession of some lands in Sy.No.207. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the allotment of Ac.284.00 cents of land to the 7th respondent, in the above survey number and other survey numbers after converting the said land from 'Metha Poramboku' to 'Anaadeenam Mettu land'. It is the case of the petitioners that 'Metha Poramboku' land would mean that the said land is 'communal land' and conversion of this land into 'Anaadeeenam Mettu' land would convert the land from 'communal land' to 'Government Land'.

The petitioners relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors1 and the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in Konda Varamma Vs. The District Judge, SPSR Nellore District and Ors.,2 and a Judgment in

(2011) 11 SCC 396

2013 (1) ALD 782

W.P.No.19153 of 2020 to contend that the said conversion is not permissible.

Sri Sasibhushan Rao, learned counsel appearing for learned Additional Advocate General would submit that these Judgments relate to the questions raised under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and that a survey of the area has shown that there is minimal live stock which would not require such a huge extent of land for grazing.

He would further submit that the 7th respondent is being allotted land in that area primarily to cater to the needs of ISRO and the said land had been allotted on account of the National importance of the project.

As a question of law has been raised by the petitioners in this matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land that is said to be in their possession.

Post on 07.03.2022 for counter.

In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out personal notice to the 7th respondent by RPAD and file proof of service by the next date of hearing.

________ RRR, J RJS