Balamma G. Balamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3438 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3438 AP
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Balamma G. Balamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 September, 2021

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITON NO.19734 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 declaring the action of the respondents in insisting to vacate as well as trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective the properties/plots bearing No.129, 169, 165, 134, 141, 128, 158, 155, 154, 145, 13, 12, 128, 156, 161, 159, 164, 148, 168, 02, 03, 10, 14, 20, 29, 34, 38, 74, 105, 119, 127, 133, 82, 81, 83, 66, 69, 28, 33, 01, 65, 93, 167, 166, 160, 08, 09, 86, 59, 67, 80, 58, 32, 85, 49, 19, 114, 131 and 57 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ cent each in Sy.No. 41-1, 41-3B etc., of Kurugunta Village, Ananthapuram Rural Mandal, Anantapuram District, for construction of the "Gram Sachivalayam Rythubarosa Building" and for the purpose of allotment of house sites to the weaker sections without following the procedure contemplated under the law and without initiating proceedings under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere/dispossess the petitioners from their respective property without following due process of law and pass such other orders....."

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.

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."

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

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.

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.