Smt. Yellala Neelima vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2849 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2849 AP
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt. Yellala Neelima vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.15642 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 4th respondent in trying to demolish the construction of buildings made by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.04 cents each in Sy.Nos.652 and 652/3A vide D.Nos.12-64, 12-65, 12-67 and 13-66 respectively, situated in Bodumalluvaripalli Gram Panchayat, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law and without jurisdiction, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to demolish the construction of buildings made by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.04 cents each in Sy.Nos.652 and 652/3A vide D.Nos.12-64, 12-65, 12-67 and 13-66 respectively, situated in Bodumalluvaripalli Gram Panchayat, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order...."

2. The brief facts of the case are that originally the property

admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.87 cents in Sy.No.652/3A situated in

Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District was

assigned to the forefathers of one K.Somasekhar Reddy, S/o Siva

Rami Reddy, resident of Kotapalli Village and after their demise the

same is transferred in his name vide A.M.No.79/4/92 and Pattadar

pass book and title deed vide Katha No.76 were also issued in his

favour and his name was also mutated in revenue records. Since

then, said K.Somasekhar Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of

the property and when he intend to alienate the property, the Sub-

Registrar, Piler raised objection for registering the document for want

of „No Objection‟ from the 4th respondent. Therefore, said Somasekhar

Reddy approached this Court and filed W.P.No.30768 of 2013 with a

prayer to direct the Sub-Registrar, Piler to receive and register the

document. Thereafter, again said Somasekhar Reddy presented a

document for registration and pending number is also given as

80/2012. During pendency of registration, said Somasekhar Reddy

entered into an agreement of sale with third parties on 22.07.2014

and later the same was done as Permanent Acquisition Sale

Agreement. The 1st petitioner entered into an agreement of sale, dated

18.08.2017 to purchase an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.652-3A

for valid consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- for construction of houses

and made an application before the 5th respondent for grant of

permission and accordingly the 5th respondent accorded permission

vide Receipt C.No.260/2020, dated 30.10.2020 for construction of

house in Ac.0.04 cents only. Basing on the permission, the

petitioners made applications for electricity connection and later the

same is obtained from the Electricity Department and since then they

are paying electricity consumption charges without any default and

after obtaining all necessary permissions from all the departments,

the petitioners raised constructions and the same is completed more

than half year ago. But, the respondent officials are threatening the

petitioners to demolish the structures made by the petitioners, which

is illegal and arbitrary.

3. The petitioners were allegedly entered into an agreement of

sale, raised constructions after obtaining permission from the Gram

Panchayat and paid property tax and also electricity consumption

charges to the Electricity Board. Thus, the material placed on record

would clinchingly establish that the petitioners are in possession and

enjoyment of the property and they cannot be evicted except by

following necessary procedure. Whereas, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the respondent

authorities will follow the procedure to dispossess the petitioners and

to demolish the structures raised by the petitioners in the disputed

property.

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 300-A of the Constitution."

5. Hence, recording submission of the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue that the respondent authorities will

follow due process of law and in view of the judgments of Apex Court

referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the

petitioners from the subject property or demolish the houses

constructed by them, 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.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this