Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korada Thavudu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 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.578 of 2022
(Through physical mode)
Korada Thavudu S/o late Papayya,
Aged about 72 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Korada Street, Konchada Village,
Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District.
.. Appellant
versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Dept., Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Dist., and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Tota Tejeswara Rao
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev.
Counsel for respondents 5 & 6 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.7 : Mr. K. Jyothi Prasad
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 20.09.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This intra-court appeal would call in question the order dated
28.06.2022 passed by a learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.11188 of
2021 filed by the appellant herein alleging inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6
authorities in taking action against the encroachment of the Government
2 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.A.No.578 of 2022
land/Grama Kantham land in an extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.75-2/76-1 at
Konchada Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District, and for a
consequential direction to the said authorities to take action against such
encroachment and stop the illegal constructions being made by respondent
No.7 in the subject property.
2. Before the writ Court, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a counter-affidavit
stating that respondent No.7 has acquired the subject property through his
mother, who, in turn, acquired the same vide registered sale deed bearing
document No.458 of 2001 and, as such, it is the private land of respondent
No.7 and no action can be initiated as requested by the writ petitioner.
3. Taking note of the aforesaid stand taken by respondent Nos.5 and 6,
the learned single Judge has observed that the writ petitioner is seeking to
agitate civil rights before the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, which is not permissible, and, accordingly, dismissed the writ
petition.
4. Having perused the materials on record and on due consideration, we
are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge for the
reason that the issue as to whether the subject property is Government
property or private property has to be determined on examination of oral and
documentary evidence by the civil court in appropriate proceedings and the
writ Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not ordinarily
go into such issue.
3 HCJ & DVSS,J
W.A.No.578 of 2022
5. The writ appeal has no substance and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to avail the remedy before the civil
court in accordance with law. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
[
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
IBL
