S.Subbaratnamma And 3 Others vs The Ap. Mineral Development ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8301 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8301 AP
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

S.Subbaratnamma And 3 Others vs The Ap. Mineral Development ... on 3 November, 2022

         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
              WRIT PETITION No.37049 of 2015

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 ownership and possession of Petitioners assigned patta lands admeasuring an extent of Ac. 2.22 cents in Survey No.8, Ac.1.20 cents in Survey No.8 Ac.1.78 cents in Survey No.148/2 and Ac.1.78 cents situated in Survey No.148/1 of Mangampet Village of Obulavaripalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, respectively without following or taking recourse to due process of law in the guise of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.165 Revenue (ASSN.V) Department dated 14.05.2015 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and hold that the petitioners are entitled for peaceful enjoyment of the subject land by virtue of pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioners vide Nos.158, 147, 246 and 245 by the 4th respondent ..."

The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that 1st petitioner

was assigned an extent of Ac.2.22 cents of land in survey No.8,

2nd petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Survey

No.8, 3rd petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1.78 cents in

Survey No.148/2, 4th petitioner was assigned an extent of

Ac.1.78 cents in Survey No.148/1 of Mangapet Village and they

are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above lands,

having been issued pattadhar passbooks over the respective

lands.

While the matter stood thus, the Government has issued

G.O.Ms.No.165 Revenue(ASSN.V) Department dated

14.05.2015, alienating an extent of Ac.78.42 cents in Survey

Nos. 8, 11/2, 25/3, 26, 29/3 of Mangampet Village,

Obuluvaripalli village @Rs.3,00,000/- per acre in favour of the

1st respondent.

Now, under the guise of said G.O., the respondents are

trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property,

without following the due process of law. Challenging the said

high handed action, the present Writ Petition is filed.

When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court

has passed an Interim Order on 16.11.2015, which is as

follows:

„there shall be a similar Interim direction as passed in WPNo.35510 of 2015 to maintain Status Quo existing as on today with regard to the petitioners land in Survey No.8‟.

The 1st respondent filed counter contending that out of

total extent of Ac.72.77 cents of land in Survey No.8, an extent

of Ac.45.68 cents was handed over to the 1st respondent-

Corporation and no assignments were made to the said land.

The remaining extent of Ac.27.09 cents of land in Survey No.8

of Mangampet Village, has been sub-divided duly forming new

survey numbers 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152 and is covered by

enjoyment of persons other than the Writ Petitioners 1 and 2.

The DKT patta of 1st petitioner and pattadar pass books of the

Writ petitioners No.1 and 2 are not genuine and no assignments

were made in their favour and prayed to dismiss the Writ

Petition against the Writ petitioners 1 and 2.

As per the orders of this Court dated 28-09-2022, the

case against petitioners No.3 and 4 was dismissed as

withdrawn.

The Writ Petitioner also sought for an Interim Relief

directing the respondents from interfering with the possession

of petitioners' subject lands.

Heard Sri.D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri.Y.Sudhakar, learned Standing Counsel for 1st

respondent and of learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue, for Respondents No.2 to 4.

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for

the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition

but however, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

submitted that respondent-authorities will follow due process of

law, if at all the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of

the subject lands.

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."

Though there are several allegations in the writ petition,

the truth or otherwise of the allegations need not be adjudicated

by this Court, in view of the submission made by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and also by applying

the principle laid down in the above judgment to the present

facts of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the

Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities

not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the

petitioners over the subject lands, without following due process

as contemplated under law.

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299