Smt. Chintam Pentamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2127 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2127 AP
Judgement Date : 24 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt. Chintam Pentamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 June, 2021

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.11900 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 respondent authorities in taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from their agricultural land in Sy.No. 377-9 to an extent of Ac. 1.20 cents, Sy.No. 292-2 to an extent of Ac. 0.66 cents, Sy.No. 266-6 to an extent of Ac. 0.34 cents, Sy.No. 266-4 to an extent of Ac. 0-62 cents, total extent of Ac. 2.82 cents situated at Nandigudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District in the name of allotting House sites under Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu Program without giving any notice and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300-A Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner's land shall not be assigned to the third parties in the name of Navaratnalu..."

The case of the petitioners is that they belonged to

Scheduled Tribe (Koya) community. The petitioners are the

absolute owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No. 377-9 to an

extent of Ac. 1.20 cents, Sy.No. 292-2 to an extent of Ac. 0.66

cents, Sy.No. 266-6 to an extent of Ac. 0.34 cents, Sy.No. 266-4 to

an extent of Ac. 0-62 cents, total extent of Ac. 2.82 cents situated

at Nandigudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari

District. Originally the land belonged to husband of the 1st

petitioner by name Chintam Brahmadevudu @ Brahmaiah S/o

Pitchaiah. Her husband inherited the said property by way of

succession. The husband of the 1st petitioner died on 21.04.2010

and after death of her husband the petitioners became the

absolute owners of the land. The Revenue Authorities mutated the

name of the husband of the 1st petitioner in all revenue records,

but they could not get mutation of their names in the revenue

records. On 28.05.2021 and 14.06.2021 the revenue authorities

have visited the land of the petitioners and took measurements by

conducting survey. When the petitioner approached the

authorities, they stated that they are going to assign the land of

the petitioners to the land less poor for providing house sites under

Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu Programme. Therefore, the

petitioners approached the 4th respondent and requested not to

dispossess the petitioners from the land. Hence there is a threat of

dispossession from the subject land of the petitioners. Hence this

Writ Petition is filed.

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 placed on record the written instructions

in Rc.B/79/2021, dated 18.06.2021 and fairly submitted that the

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

respondents are not interfering with possession of the petitioners

property, 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.