Chelapareddi Rama Rao vs The State Of Ap
2024 Latest Caselaw 9499 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chelapareddi Rama Rao vs The State Of Ap on 21 October, 2024

APHC010460782024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                  [3328]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
                         PRASAD

                   WRIT PETITION NOs: 23921 & 23926 of 2024

W.P.No.23921 of 2024

Between:

  1. CHELAPAREDDI RAMA RAO, S/O. CHELAPEDDI RAMU NAIDU,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS H. NO. 8-49/8 C H R PLAZA, NH 5
     PARAVADA   MANDLAM,  LANKELAPALEM,    LANKELAPALEM,
     VISAKHAPARTNAM, A.P.

                                                          ...PETITIONER

                                    AND

  1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI,
     AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

  2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI.

  3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI.

  4. V, PARAVADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI.

                                                     ...RESPONDENT(S):

Between:

1. BIRADAVOLU CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. PARANDAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. LANKALAPALEM VILLAGE,

PARIVADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, PARAVADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Rizwan Ali Shaik, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in both Writ Petitions and Sri Srinivas Pathuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Sale Deeds in favour of the Writ Petitioners dated 25.10.2007 & 24.02.2012 (in respect of Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.23921 & 23926 of 2024 respectively). He had also drawn the attention of this Court to the Electricity Bills and Receipts relating to the Municipal Taxes filed along with the Writ Petitions and would submit that issuance of notices under Section 7 of A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Impugned Orders herein) is contrary to law and also contrary to the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another [(1982) 2 SCC 134].

3. In the light of the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Writ Petitioners. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders issued under Section 7 of A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the consequential proceedings, if any, shall remain suspended until next listing.

4. List these matters on 13.11.2024 for final hearing. Liberty to file Counter Affidavits in the meantime.

_________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:21.10.2024 Note: Issue C.C by 22.10.2024 B/O : JKS