Bellamkonda Surya Venkata ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2848 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2848 AP
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bellamkonda Surya Venkata ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                     WRIT PETITON NO.15707 of 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent authorities in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural land in Sy.No.734-1 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated at Chamakuripalem Village, Lingaboina Cherla Revenue Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District for allotting house sites under Navaratnalu Programme, without giving any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural land without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without following due process of law and pass such other order...."

2. The petitioner's case in brief is that she is the absolute

owner and possessor of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.00

cents in Sy.No.734-1 situated at Chamakuripalem Village,

Lingaboina Cherla Revenue Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West

Godavari District. Originally, the property belonged to their

ancestors. The petitioner inherited the property by way of intestate

succession and she has been in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the same without any hindrance from anybody from

any corner and her name is also mutated in revenue records like

Adangal, 1-B register and obtained Pattadar pass book and title

deed etc., she has been paying taxes to the Government. While so,

on 12.07.2021 the revenue authorities visited the subject land and

took measurements by conducting survey. When the petitioner

questioned about the same, they replied that they are going to

assign the land to landless poor persons under the scheme

"Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu". The petitioner approached the

4th respondent and requested him not to dispossess the petitioner

from the subject property. Again, on 23.07.2021 the revenue

authorities made certain markings without following due

procedure and without giving any notice, which is illegal and

arbitrary.

3. The petitioner produced e-Pattadar pass book and title deed

to the property in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1

situated at Chamakuripalem Village, Lingaboina Cherla Revenue

Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District and latest

adangals for the fasali 1431 would clinchingly establish prima facie

that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property

vide entries in column Nos.12 and 13. Thus, the petitioner

substantiated her case that she is in possession and enjoyment of

the property by producing satisfactory documentary evidence and

she cannot be dispossessed from the land, except by due process

of law.

4. It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be

dispossessed forcibly as held in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M.

Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr1, Ram Rattan v. State of

Uttar Pradesh2 and Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration3, the

Supreme Court held as follows:-

"...to forcibly dispossess citizens of their private

property, without following the due process of law,

would be to violate a human right, as also the

constitutional right under Article 300A of the

Constitution."

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

5. By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment to

the present facts of the case, the respondents are directed not to

dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due

process of law.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at

the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel.

However, this order will not preclude the respondents to take

appropriate steps, in accordance with law. There shall be no order

as to costs.