Teegala Govindaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8381 AP

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
                 WRIT PETITION No.3576 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 un dated notices in Rc.B. 769/2014 in Form-II issued by the 4th respondent under Rule 3 of AP Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Rules, 2007, in respect of Ac.0.90 cents in Survey No. 56/9A and 56/9B of Juvvalapalem Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal and without jurisdiction set aside the same or in the alternative direct the 4 th respondent to furnish the details of the alleged assignment of the above said land in favour of 3rd parties and permit the petitioners who file effective explanation therefor and further direct the respondents not to dispossess the 1st petitioner from Ac 0 30 cents of dry land in Survey No.56-9B and the 2nd petitioner from Ac.0.40 cents of dry land in Survey No.56-9A of Juvvalapalem Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass such other order ..."

When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has

passed an Order on 23.02.2015, which is as follows:

„It is left open to the petitioners to submit their explanation by way of complaint through RPAD to the authorities concerned indicating that the respondents did not receive their explanation, which was sought to be submitted on 13.02.2015. On such explanation being received, the respondents shall process the same in accordance with law‟.

On 17.03.2015, this Court passed an Interim Order which

is as follows:

„Pending passing of further orders in the MP., the 4 th respondent shall furnish all the documents, which the petitioners sought through his explanation dated 28.02.2014, within a period of two(02) weeks from today. Thereafter, on furnishing the documents, the petitioners are at liberty to file their explanation within a period of two(02) weeks‟

The petitioners claim is only to follow the due process of

law, in case the respondents are attempting to dispossess the

petitioners from their land.

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for

the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue submitted written instructions stating that

the Survey No.56-9 with an extent of Ac.0.90 cents is classified

as „Gayallu' as per Fair Adangal of Juvvalapalem and it was

sub-divided into 56-9A and 56-9B and one Vemureddy Janaki

Ramireddy is Assignee. At present as per Web Land Adangal

Survey No.56-9A, the Pattadar and Enjoyer is Teegala Venkata

Ramanaiah and for Survey No.56-9B, the Pattadar and Enjoyer

is Vemureddy Janaki Ramireddy. As per the ground position

and as per record, T.Venkataramanaiah and T.Govindaiah are

enjoyers of the lands. At present the land is left as vacant land.

Further, the above lands are Government Lands and it is

assigned to the Vemireddy Janakiramireddy. Under Rule 3 of

AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rule, 2007 and

under 4 of the Act, this land is liable to be resumed to

Government for violation of provisions contained in the Section

3 of the Act and under the above circumstances notices will

again be issued to the above persons.

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for

petitioners and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Revenue and in view of the 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

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

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.

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.3576 of 2015

Date : 07.11.2022

AVTP