Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sakina Estates, Rep. By Its vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 8 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.14160 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 respondents
in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Survey Nos.
40/1B3 admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents Survey No.40/1B4 admeasuring
Ac.1.00 Survey No.40/1B6 admeasuring Ac.1.00 Survey No.40 /1B2
admeasuring Ac.1.00 Survey No.40/1B5 admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents
and Survey No.40/1B1 admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents situated at
Kommadi Revenue Village, Visakhapatnam Revenue Mandal of
Visakhapatnam District, without initiating any proceedings for
acquisition of the said land by following statutory procedure known to
law as being arbitrary illegal unreasonable and violative of principles
of natural justice apart from being violative of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction directing the
respondents not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioner from the
said land and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ..."
When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has
passed an Interim Order on 07.05.2015, which is as follows:
„Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice for
respondents and seeks time to get instructions‟
The case of the petitioner is that it purchased the lands in survey Nos.
40/1B3, admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents, 40/1B4, admeasuring Ac.1.00
cents, 40/1B6, admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents, 40/1B2, admeasuring
Ac.1.00 cents, 40/1B5, admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents and 40/1B1,
admeasuring Ac.1.01 cents of Kommadi Revenue Village,
Visakhapatnam Revenue Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from the
rightful owner, on whose favour, the Government allotted the said lands
on payment of market value, vide proceedings of the then Tahsildar,
Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam, in Rc.No.2821/75/B1,
dated 29.04.1978.
When the Sub-Registrar insisted for NOC for registration of
documents, the vendors of the petitioner filed W.P.No.18648/2013
before this Court and the same was allowed vide orders dated
01.07.2013.
It is further case of the petitioner is that after purchase, the
petitioner applied for pattadar passbooks and title deed on 29.10.2013,
and when no action was taken on his application, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.6021/2014 before this court and the same was disposed of on
11.03.2014, directing the revenue authorities to consider the application
of the petitioner, in accordance with law. However, the revenue
authorities are interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the
subject lands.
In view of the above facts and circumstances and since there is
threat of dispossession, there shall be status quo as on today, in
respect of the possession of the subject lands, till 15.06.2015.
Post on 15.06.2015 in the motion list.‟
The petitioner's claim is only to follow the due process of
law, in case the respondents are attempting to interfere with or
dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands.
The respondent No.4 filed counter, denying the contention
of the petitioner and stated that in pursuance of the orders
passed by this Court Writ Appeal, proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner under Act 9/1977 and notices under
Form I and II issued to petitioner on 18.04.2015 and the same
were served by them on 06.05.2015, but so far they have not
received any explanation from the petitioner. As of now, they
have not passed any.
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 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.
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
petitioner over the subject lands, if at all petitioner is 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,
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 : 08.11.2022
AVTP
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.14160 of 2015
Date : 08.11.2022
AVTP
