KURVA SUVARNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the house site plot No.94 in Survey No.232/1B situate at Duppanagurti hamlet of P.Kotakonda Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District, and not to dispossess him from the said land.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.4.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house site bearing Plot No.94 in Survey No.232/1B in an extent of Ac.0.04 cents situate at Duppanagurti hamlet of P.Kotakonda village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District. According to him, considering his poverty and as he is a landless poor, the erstwhile Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh granted house site patta in his favour for the above house site plot and since then he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the 4th respondent, who is the Tahsildar of Devanakonda Mandal, made an attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the said house site without following due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17940 of 2020 in this Court against the 4th respondent herein. This Court, as per order dated 05.10.2020 passed in the said writ petition, directed the Tahsildar not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. It is stated that thereafter, on 20.10.2020 the 3rd respondent, who is the Station House Officer, Devanakonda Police Station, warned the petitioner not to enter the said house site. So, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, who is the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, and informed him about the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.17940 of 2020 on 05.10.2020. However, the 2nd respondent did not properly respond and he also warned the petitioner not to enter the said house site. Therefore, in view of the said direction given by respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner not to enter the said house site, which was allotted to him by the Government, the petitioner, by way of this Writ Petition, sought direction to the 3rd respondent not to interfere with his possession in respect of the said house site and not to dispossess him from the said house site.