Pothani Lakshmaiah, S/O. ... vs The Tahsildar,
2022 Latest Caselaw 8379 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8379 AP
Judgement Date : 7 November, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pothani Lakshmaiah, S/O. ... vs The Tahsildar, on 7 November, 2022

Bench: V.Sujatha

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
               WRIT PETITION No.8218 of 2015

ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners lands to an extent of Ac.2.88 cents in Survey No. 107/B each, Ac.1.44 cents situated at Pathegad Village, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands to an extent of Ac.2.88 cents in Survey No.107/B each Ac.1.44 cents situated at Pathegad Village, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District, without due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ..."

The Writ Petitioners also sought for an Interim Relief

directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the

subject land, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. When this Writ

Petition came for admission, this Court has passed an Interim Order

on 27.03.2015, which is as follows:

„Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Post after one(01) week in the Motion List. Till then, Status Quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained‟.

The petitioner's claim is only to follow the due process of

law, in case the respondents are attempting to dispossess the

petitioners from their lands.

The respondent No.1 filed counter, denying the contention

of the petitioners that the respondents intend to dispossess the

petitioners from the subject lands. The subject lands are prima-

facie Government lands and Government being the ultimate

authority and sole custodian is empowered to take possession of

the subject lands, in accordance with the provisions of Acts and

Rules and under due process of law. The petitioners have tried

to utilize the land for non-agricultural purposes by constructing

house and tried to form layout in the Government Land for their

own benefits and the subject lands were alienated on a series of

occasions and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for

the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition

and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

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 also 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.

AIR 2004 SC 4609

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, if at all they are in possession

and enjoyment of the subject lands, without following due

process as contemplated under law.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of,