A Gnanasundari vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 2191 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2191 AP
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

A Gnanasundari vs The State Of Ap on 29 June, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.12372 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 high handed action of the Respondents 2 to 5 in an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.406, an extent of Ac.0.74 cents Sy.No.403/1 and an extent of Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.402 of Mogili Village, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and without following due procedure contemplated under law and pass such other order..."

2. It is the case of petitioners that they are economically

backward persons. The Tahsildar issued a D-Form patta assigning

the land in an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No.406, an extent of

Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.403/1 and an extent of Ac.0.92 cents in

Sy.No.402 of Mogili Village, Bangarupalyam Mandal and they are

cultivating the said land by raising crops. For the last 15 years, the

petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

But, the respondents 4 and 5 are illegally attempting to destroy the

existing crop in the disputed lands and they are trying to

dispossess the petitioners from the said land without following due

process of law, 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

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

petitioners are in possession of the disputed property.

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 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

petitioner 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

this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.