Poteti Subba Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2644 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2644 AP
Judgement Date : 27 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Poteti Subba Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 July, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                           WRIT PETITON NO.14662 of 2021

ORDER:

This 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 4th respondent herein in laying an approach road from the petitioner's agricultural patta land in Sy.No.310-3, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of Mantapampalle Village, Vontimitta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by dispossessing the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act, by defeating the rights of the petitioner as illegal and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned agricultural land of the petitioner and pass such other order or 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, the

Supreme Court held as follows:-

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

"...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 Pleader 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

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's

property without following due process of law, since the petitioner

is able to establish prima facie that he is in possession and

enjoyment of the subject property by producing Adangal/pahani.

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