Gruhajyothi Estates And Building ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2103 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2103 AP
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gruhajyothi Estates And Building ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 June, 2021

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.11670 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 possession of petitioner's land in Sy.Nos. 20/6, 20/7, 20/8, 24/3, 24/4, 25/1, 25/2, 25/1, 26/3, 26/4, 26/5, 30/6 and Sy.No.48/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Nidigattu Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, comprising of a total extent of Ac. 10-40 cents and 822.49 Sq.yds 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 lands situated in Sy.Nos. 20/6, 20/7,

20/8, 24/3, 24/4, 25/1, 25/2, 25/1, 26/3, 26/4, 26/5, 30/6 and

Sy.No.48/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Nidigattu Panchayat,

Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, they

purchased the same from respective vendors under various

Registered Sale Deeds and ever since they have been possession

and enjoyment of their respective lands. The petitioners 1 and 2

have developed the lands situated in Sy.No. 26 and laid layouts.

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

dispossess the petitioners from the property, 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.

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

However, this order will not preclude the respondents to take