Chinnapa Reddy Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2168 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                       WRIT PETITION NO.11983 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

respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.0-85 cents in

D.No.85/1D2 of Narnepadu Village, Muppalla Mandal, as arbitrary,

illegal and violative of the rights conferred under Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India and pass such other order..."

2. It is the case of petitioner that he is in settled possession and

enjoyment of the subject property and in proof of his title over the

property, he produced 1-B (ROR) to show that the petitioner is in

possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.0-85 cents

in Sy.No.85/1D2 and nature of acquisition is inheritance. Apart

from that the Adangal for fasali 1430 also discloses that the

petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thus, the

petitioner prima facie established that he is in possession and

enjoyment of the property as on date. But, the respondents allegedly

attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without

any manner of right and such highhanded action is impermissible

under law.

3. 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

AIR 2004 SC 4609 MSM,J

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."

4. Hence, in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above,

the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from

the subject property, except by due process of law.

5. 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 this

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 28-06-2021 ARR

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 MSM,J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.11983 OF 2021

Date: 28-06-2021

ARR