Smt. Padibandla Venkataramanamma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No. 968 of 2015 DATE: 28.01.2015 Between:

Padibandla Venkataramanamma and three others .. Petitioners And The Govt. of A.P. and 3 others .. Respondents

O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that the 4th respondent, who is the original owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.1179 P situated in Navuru village, Podalakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, leased out the property to one Padibandla Laxmidevamma on 12.08.1992 for a period of 99 years and executed a written Tenancy Agreement in her favour and since then she has been in

possession and enjoyment of the land in question. While so, it is stated that after the death of the lessee, her son namely Padibandla Rambabu took possession of the land and cultivating it. On 30.06.2014, Rambabu also died, and subsequently, the petitioners, who are the wife and the children of Rambabu respectively have been in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Now, the petitioners' grievance is that at the instance of the 4th respondent, the official respondent Nos.2 and 3, on 20.01.2015, without issuing any notice and without following due procedure, tried to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the husband of the 1st petitioner filed A.T.C.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Agricultural Tenancy Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur and the same is pending adjudication and the dispute between the petitioners and the 4th respondent is a civil dispute, as such, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no manner of right to dispossess the petitioners.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband of the 1st petitioner filed A.T.C.No.1 of 2013 claiming tenancy rights, it appears that the matter is purely of civil nature and as no contradictory pleading is forthcoming by way of filing counter affidavit denying the institution of the civil case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: "Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in question without following the due process of law. It is needless to mention that if, for any reason, the official respondents are forced to interfere with the possession of the petitioners by way of any proceedings that may be initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent, they may do so only after issuing notice and

following the due procedure."

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 28.01.2015 bcj