Palina Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 2602 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2602 AP
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Palina Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Ap on 26 July, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITON NO.14454 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 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and trying to disposes/evict from private patta land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac 0.25 cents out of total an extent of Ac. 0.90 cents situated in Sy.No 203-2/2 of Gunalapadu Revenue Village, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District which was ancestral property for the purpose of establishment of Dumping Yard, without issuing any notice without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice without publication of declaration mandatory under Sections 11(1) 15 and 19(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and violation Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land...."

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 Pattadar Pass Book and other material produced before

this court clearly established that the petitioner, prima facie

possession and enjoyment of the property and thus, the person

who is in settled possession, cannot be dispossessed, except by

due process of law.

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."

Hence, recording submission of the learned Assistant

Government for Revenue as there is no proposal to take possession

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

referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the

petitioners, 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.

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

this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.