Yenugu Seetha Veera Venkata ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2478 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                            MAIN CASE No.: W.P. No.14509 of 2022
                                         PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.                                                                                     Office
           DATE                                    ORDER
No                                                                                      Note
1.    12.05.2022        TRR, J

                                As per the assertion made in the writ
                        affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the
                        property    in    Sy.No.239       of    Parupaka     Village,
                        Rowthulapudi Mandal, Kakinada belongs to the
                        petitioner herein.

                                Learned Government Pleader for Revenue
                        on instructions stated that the Sy.No.239 is
                        Gramakantam land. Assuming that the land is a
                        Gramakantam        land,       either       Government     or
                        Panchayat have no role over the Gramakantam
                        land as per the judgment reported in                 "Bayya
                        Mahadeva Sastry and others V. State of
                        Andhra      Pradesh,       rep.        by   its    Principal
                        Secretary,           (Panchayat               Department),
                        Velagapudi,        and       others1",       "     Nagarala
                        Nirvasithula          Welfare           Association        V.
                        Government of Andhra Pradesh and others2"
                        and " Sigadapu Vijaya V. State of Andhra
                        Pradesh, rep.         by its      Principal Secretary,
                        Revenue Department and others3".

                                Hence, there shall be an interim direction to
                        the     respondents    not     to      interfere   with   the

possession of the petitioner herein for a period of six(6) weeks.

2020 (4) ALT 250 (S.B.)

2012 Law Suit (AP) 358

2015 (4) ALT 296 Post on 20.06.2022.

________ TRR, J

KLPD/BSP