N P Jayaprakash, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3846 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3846 AP
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

N P Jayaprakash, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 September, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITON NO.19915 of 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land for an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Survey No.282 of Gandlapalle Village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of law and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the land for an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Survey No.282 of Gandlapalle Village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order.".

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the grand mother of

the petitioner namely G.Narayanamma purchased property to an

extent of Ac.2.54 cents in Sy.No.285-2 of Gandlapalle village,

Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District vide document No.5704 of 1996,

dated 30.12.1996 and was in possession and enjoyment of the

land without any interruptions from anybody. Meanwhile, the

sister of the petitioner namely V.R.Praveena also purchased

agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.87 cents in Sy.No.282-A,

283-A, 285-2B, 285-4, 285-5, 276-B of Gandlapalle village,

Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District vide document No.5696/1996,

dated 30.12.1996 and both of them in possession and enjoyment

of the land since the date of purchase.

3. It is submitted that both of them executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of petitioner, to manage the schedule properties,

vide document Nos.8/2007 and 9/2007, dated 24.01.2007, since

then, the petitioner was cultivating the land. The petitioner also

cultivating another land to an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.282

of Gandlapalle village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District which is a

vacant site since the date of purchase of the property from the year

1996 with the knowledge of one and all in the locality.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities

without having any right over the property and without any due

notice, trying to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule land

from an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.282 of Gandlapalle village,

Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District claiming that the land belongs

to the Government. Hence the petition.

5. Though the petitioner 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, on written instructions vide ROC.A/662/2021, dated

08.09.2021, wherein it is stated "that the land in Sy.No.282 of

Gandlapalli revenue village is not proposed for the purpose of any

government schemes and if at all the land is required for providing

house sites to the poor persons or for any other public purpose,

necessary action will be initiated under due process of law. In the

instant case, the respondents have not initiated any action. The

writ petitioner with mere apprehension has approached the High

Court of A.P., Amaravati without approaching the respondent

authorities in this regard. Hence there is no justification in the

contents of the petition".

6. The documents produced by petitioner primafacie establish

that he is in possession and enjoyment of subject property,

consequently, he cannot be dispossessed from the subject property

except by due process of law. It is settled law that a person in

settled possession cannot be dispossess except by due process of

law.

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."

7. 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 his property except by due process of law.

8. 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.

Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299