J.Venkataramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2714 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2714 AP
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

J.Venkataramana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 July, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.14822 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 3rd respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.909/3A and an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.909/3B situated in Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, belonging to the petitioners and erecting the caution board, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.6273 of 2020, dated 17032020 and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere further and remove the caution board erected by him and pass such other order...."

2. It is the case of petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the

possessor and pattadar of property admeasuring an extent of

Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.909/3A situated in Bodumalluvaripalli

Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. The 2nd petitioner is his

brother and he is the possessor and pattadar of property

admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.909/3B situated

in Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District.

Originally, the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.70 cents

was assigned to their grandfather late Gangaiah by the then

Tahsildar, Vayalpadu. After his demise, the petitioners' father was

in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Taking into

consideration of their possession and enjoyment over the property

in an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.909/3A situated in

Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, the

1st petitioner's name was mutated in revenue records and issued

pattadar pass book and title deed by the then Tahsildar and he is

cultivating the same. The 2nd petitioner's name is also mutated in

revenue records for an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.909/3B.

Recently, the respondent authorities tried to resume the land for

allotment of house sites to the weaker sections and economically

backward classes persons under DKT pattas. The revenue officials

are now trying to evict the petitioners by using force at the

instigation of local political leaders. Questioning the highhanded

action of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6273 of

2020 before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass an

order on 17.03.2020 directing the respondents not to dispossess

the petitioners, except by due process of law. Since the date of

passing order, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the same without anybody's interference. But,

recently, the 3rd respondent again interfered and directed the

petitioners not to cultivate the property, while saying so, he erected

a board stating that "no constructions are to be made in

Sy.No.909/1 and 3 in an extent of Ac.4.84 cents and Ac.2.70 cents,

situated in Bodumalluvaripalle village as the said lands are D-Form

patta lands", which is illegal and arbitrary.

3. 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

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 land.

4. 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."

5. 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

dispossess the petitioners from the subject property, except by due

process of law.

6. 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