P. Babajan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2350 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2350 AP
Judgement Date : 9 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P. Babajan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 July, 2021

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                           WRIT PETITON NO.13195 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents especially 3rd and 4th respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house in plot bearing No. 54 admeasuring Ac. 0.02.4 cents in Sy.No. 119/P situated at Minority Colony, Raptadu Village, Raptadu Mandal, Ananthapuram District, without following procedure established under law as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment over his house plot and pass such other orders.."

Though the petitioner made several allegations in the writ

affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the truth or otherwise in

those allegations need not be adjudicated by this Court, in view of

the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Revenue that the respondent authorities will follow due process

of law. The material on record prima facie establishes that the

petitioner is in possession of the disputed property.

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,

wherein 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

Hence, recording the submission of the learned Assistant

Government for Revenue and in view of the judgments of Apex

Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to

dispossess the petitioner, except by due process of law.

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.