Sri. Kanderi Sekhar Babu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2101 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2101 AP
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri. Kanderi Sekhar Babu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 June, 2021

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.11672 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 not to take possession of the petitioners land situated in Plot No.3 and plot No.4 of Sy.No.24/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Nidiguattu Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, comprising of a total extent of Ac. 4.86 cents, for the purported purpose of expressway beach corridor road, except in accordance with and under due process of law."

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the

absolute owners of the Plot Nos. 3 and 4, total extent of 486 Sq.yds

situated in Sy.No.24/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Nidigattu

Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,

who purchased the same from respective vendors under seperate

Registered Sale Deeds and ever since they have been possession

and enjoyment of their respective land and laid layout. On

07.06.2021 the respondents conducted survey and demarcated the

lands of the petitioners alleging that they are acquiring the land for

laying express highway from Bheemunipatnam to the proposed

Bhogapuram International Airpart at Bhogapuram in Vizianagaram

District and that the same is being called as "Beach Corridor". The

petitioners have given representation on 08.06.2021 with a request

to follow the due process of law, but in vain. The respondents are

illegally encroaching the lands of the petitioners without following

due procedure. Hence, this Writ 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 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:-

"...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 take any

coercive steps, except by due process of law. Further, the

respondents are directed not to interfere with possession and

enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 3 and 4 to an

extent of 4.86 Sq.yds as shown in the Sale Deed, but it was typed

as Ac.4.86 cents wrongly, as submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioner Sri S.V.S.Chowdary situated in Sy.No. 24/2 of

Nerellavalasa Village, Nidigattu Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam

Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.