Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Kumay Kumara Swamy Naidu, vs 1. Y Nagarajulu Naidu, on 17 September, 2024
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
APHC010410632021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL No.690 OF 2021
Between:
Y.Kumara Swamy Naidu ...APPELLANT
AND
Y.Nagarajulu Naidu and Others ...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Challa Gunaranjana
Counsel for the Respondents: Ld. Govt. Pleader for Revenue
Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava
The court made the following judgment: [per Hon'ble RRR, J]
1. The first respondent approached this Court by way of
filing W.P. No.17067 of 2021 contending that he was in
possession of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.42/2A; Ac.0.25
cents in Sy.No.42/2B and Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.42/2C;
aggregating Ac.0.70 cents of land situated in SR Puram
17.09.2024
Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. The first respondent
contended that he had the title over the said land by
virtue of D-form patta AM No.97/4/1407, dated
24.07.2000 and that the respondent authorities have
been trying to dispossess him from the said land without
following the procedure established by law.
2. The Tahsildar, SR. Puram, had issued written instructions
to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue, who placed the same before the learned single
Judge. In these written instructions, it was stated that
about Ac.0.50 cents of land was in the possession of the
first respondent and that the land is lying vacant with a
B.S.N.L. network tower in the middle of the land. In the
written instructions it is also stated that the patta relied
upon by the first respondent was bogus.
3. Based on these statements, the learned single judge had
disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent
authorities not to dispossess the first respondent from the
subject property except in accordance with law and giving
liberty to the respondent authorities to take steps for
cancelling the patta, if they so choose.
17.09.2024
4. The appellant, who is the cousin of the first respondent,
has filed the present appeal with leave, contending that
he is in possession of the subject land and that the first
respondent, under the guise of the orders of the learned
single judge, is trying dispossess the appellant from the
said land. The appellant would also contend that he had
filed W.P. No.13202 of 2019 claiming possession of the
land and there are interim directions protecting the said
possession.
5. The appellant has filed the present appeal seeking to set
aside the order of the learned single judge,
dt.24.08.2021, in W.P. No.17067 of 2021 on the ground
that the first respondent, taking shelter under the said
order, is trying to dispossess him from the land.
6. On a perusal of the impugned order and after perusal of
the record and after hearing the submissions of both
sides, this Court is of the opinion that the question as to
who is in possession of the subject property, is a question
of fact which cannot be decided by this court.
7. In such circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of.
Leaving it open to the appellant and the respondents to
demonstrate the right, title and possession over the land
17.09.2024
in appropriately instituted the proceedings. It is however
directed that the observations and directions of the
learned single judge in the order dated 24.08.2021, in
W.P. No.17067 of 2021, shall not be taken into account
by the forum before whom either of the parties approach.
No costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal
shall stand closed.
_______________________
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
BV
