Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik China Patcha Hussain vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 7 November, 2022
Bench: V.Sujatha
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.8429 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 respondent
No.3 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his lawful
possession in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Survey
No.465 situated at Korumetta village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District,
without issuing any notice and without following the due process of Law
as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 21 and 300A of
the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to
dispossess or in any manner interfere with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the above said land...."
The Writ Petitioner also sought for an Interim Relief
directing the respondents not to dispossess or in any manner
interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner in respect of 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
petitioner from his lands.
When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner 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 petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of
the subject land.
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.
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
AIR 2004 SC 4609
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities
not to dispossess or in any manner interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner from the subject
lands, if at all he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject
land, without following due process as contemplated under law.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of,
with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in
this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date : 07.11.2022
AVTP
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.8429 of 2015
Date : 07.11.2022
AVTP
