Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bejjipuram Swami Naidu, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.557 OF 2022
(Through physical mode)
Bejjipuram Swami Naidu,
S/o late China Narannaidu,
Aged 64 years, R/o Donkalaparta
Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.
..Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.,
by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayath Raj & Rural Development,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District
and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao.
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development.
Counsel for respondent No.5 : GP for Revenue.
Counsel for respondent No.6 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:30.06.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal would call in question the order dated 05.05.2022
passed by learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.16740 of 2021, which
was preferred by the appellant/petitioner challenging the action of the
respondents in proceeding with construction of Rythubarosa Kendram,
Wellness Center, Bulk Milk Cooling Center, Anganwadi Center, in the
petitioner's Gramakantam land, without following due process of law.
2. Perusal of the order under appeal would indicate that in order to
establish prima facie case of his possession over the subject land, the
HCJ & DVSSS, J
appellant/petitioner relied on the certificate issued by the Village Revenue
Officer. But the said certificate was denied by the respondents. The writ
Court appointed an advocate-commissioner to ascertain the ground
situation. As per the report of the advocate-commissioner, respondent
No.6 has already commenced construction of the building, and about 36
pillars have already been raised in Ac.0.20 cents of land. On the basis of
the report of the advocate-commissioner, the learned single Judge has
recorded a finding that the appellant/petitioner is not in possession of the
subject land and the 6th respondent is in possession of the same.
3. Considering the material placed before the writ Court and the facts,
which were appropriately dealt with and considered by the learned single
Judge to record a finding that the appellant/petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either title or possession over the subject land, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order under appeal.
4. While declining to interfere with the order passed by the learned
single Judge, we observe that it will be open for the appellant/petitioner
to file a civil suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court to establish his
title/possession over the subject land. If the petitioner avails such
remedy, the Civil Court will decide the matter on its own merits, in
accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations
made by the learned single Judge.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending
miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
