D. Lalithamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2528 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2528 AP
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

D. Lalithamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.14033 OF 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 4 and 5 in trying to evict the petitioners from the possession and enjoyment of house properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents each in Sy.No.1694 bearing Plot Nos.29 and 28 respectively covered under House Site Patta Nos.352 and 350/1408 dated 23.03.1999 situated in Chettecherla Village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their respective peaceful possession and enjoyment of the House Properties and pass such other order..."

2. On the request of the petitioners, the respondents issued

possession certificate to the petitioners in the year 1999 in

Roc.No.63, dated 23.03.1999 for Plot Nos.29 and 28 respectively

in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents each in Sy.No.1694. After receipt of

said possession certificate of house sites, the petitioners

constructed small houses in half of the extents and remaining

extent is being used for dumping dry hay and using for teathering

cattle by constructing a shed. Thus, the petitioners are in

possession and enjoyment of the subject property in their own

right.

3. The 4th respondent granted pattas and he has conducted

survey and fixed boundaries to the house sites of petitioners and

fix the boundaries without causing any damage to others and the

petitioners restricted their activities within the boundaries as fixed

by the 4th respondent. Since the date of issuance of possession

certificate, no revenue official came to the petitioners and made

allegation, raised no dispute with regard to possession and

enjoyment of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioners are in

possession of the subject property in their own right as directed

by the 4th respondent.

4. Since 02.07.2021, the 4th respondent official along with the

5th respondent police visiting to the petitioners' land and started

removing with JCB, without assigning any reason and when the

petitioners questioned about their highhandedness, they revealed

that the time granted to the petitioners to vacate the house site is

elapsed but the petitioners did not remove the same. Therefore,

they started demolishing cattle shed and other house building

without cancellation of possession certificate and thereby the

highhanded act of the respondents and illegality of it is questioned

now in the present writ petition by the petitioners.

5. During hearing, Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for

petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition.

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

requested to pass appropriate order based on the possession

certificate and other material.

6. The petitioners are claiming to be in permissible possession

of the property alleging that the respondents are highhandedly

dispossessing the petitioners from the subject property and

causing damage to the cattle shed etc., The claim of the

petitioners is based on Patta No.Roc.No.63, dated 23.03.1999,

whereby the Tahsildar certified that the 1st petitioner by name

D.Lalithamma is in possession and enjoyment of Plot No.29 in an

extent of Ac.0.03 cents and another certificate for Plot No.28 for

an extent of Ac.0.03 cents was issued in the name of Merugu

Rathnamma, 2nd petitioner and they are in possession of their

respective site.

7. To substantiate the same, the petitioners produced Aadhar

cards and Household Supply Cards to show that they constructed

house and residing there with their families. Thus, the material on

record prima facie establishes that the petitioners are in

permissible possession of the subject property in terms of the

possession certificates issued by the Tahsildar. Unless the

permission is revoked, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed by

the respondents, either at the instance of 5th respondent or some

other person. However, no material is placed on record to

establish that the permission is revoked by the 4th respondent till

date. In the absence of such revocation of permission, the

petitioners cannot be dispossessed highhandedly.

8. 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."