Karri Ammaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2578 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2578 AP
Judgement Date : 24 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Karri Ammaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 July, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITON NO.14353 of 2021

ORDER:

This 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 more particularly 4th respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their houses Karri Ammaji: D/No.2-293, Garikina Satyavathi: D/No.2-234, Vanka Mangadevi; D/No.2-39/1, Surada Indira; D/No.3-299/2, Malle Ratnam; D/No.2-300/1, Gurrala Lakshmi; D/No.2-154, Mylapalli Lovamaa; D/No.2-154, Satyavathi Merugu: D/No.2-340/1, Surada Chittamma: D/No.2-176, Garikina Appayyamma: D/No 2-43, Kundi Usha: D/No.4-15, Vanka Ratnam: D/No.2-326/4, Mallipilli Kondamma: D/No.2-36/3, Surada Krupa: D/No.2-126, Osipalli Bandamma: D/No.4-37, Puspavathi Surada: D/No.2-340/1, Ramu Arjili: D/No.3-54 and Malle Deena: D/No.3-220/2 without following the due process of law as illegal arbitrary unjust and violation of articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble court and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following the due process of law and in the interest of justice.".

The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioners are

residents of Suryaraopeta, Kakinada and they are in possession of

their respective properties by erecting small thatch sheds and tin-

sheet sheds. The said property which are in possession is a

government property. There is no dispute with regard to their

possession and enjoyment on the said property. They have

obtained electricity connection to the said property and they are

regularly paying the electricity bills in respect of the subject land.

Except the electricity bills, Aadhar cards and household ration

cards, there is no other material to show their established

possession over the subject land. While things stood thus, the 4th

respondent/Tahsildar along with Village revenue Officer came to

the scheduled property, tried to dispossess them by demolishing

their structures without assigning any valid reasons. Hence the

petition.

Though the petitioners 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 documents produced by petitioners primafacie establish

that they are in possession and enjoyment of subject property,

consequently, they cannot be dispossessed from the subject

property except by due process of law. It is settled law that a

person in settled possession cannot be dispossess except by due

process of law.

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."

Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government

for Revenue as there is no proposal to take possession of the

Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

subject land, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred

above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps,

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