Y Nageshwaraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2960 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2960 AP
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Y Nageshwaraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 August, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION NO.16598 OF 2021

ORDER:

This writ 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 the respondents especially respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac. 2.00 cents in Survey No 228-1, vide Khata No 974 situated at Bodiganidoddi (Rotarypuram) Village Bukkaraya samudram Mandal, Anantapuramu District, without following procedure and without issuing prior notice is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.228-1, vide Khata No.974, situated at Bodiganidoddi (Rotarypuram) Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapuramu District and pass such other order..."

2. The petitioner is claiming to be owner of the property and he is

in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac. 2.00

cents in Survey No 228-1, vide Khata No 974 situated at

Bodiganidoddi (Rotarypuram) Village Bukkaraya samudram Mandal,

Anantapuramu District. But, the respondents 3 and 4 are unduly

interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over

the property without following due process of law. The petitioner

produced 1-B (ROR) for the fasli year 1431 to establish that he is the

registered owner of the land and his name is mutated in1-B (ROR).

Besides these two documents, Pattadar pass book and title deed

were also issued in his favour for the land. Adangal/Pahani for fasili

1431 placed on record would clinchingly show that the petitioner is

in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thus, the material

placed on record prima facie establish that the petitioner is in

possession and enjoyment of the property and interference of the

respondents with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the

property is illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard both counsel.

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."

5. In view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, 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.

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

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 10.08.2021

AIR 2004 SC 4609