Chodipilli Nagalakshrni Nagu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8566 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8566 AP
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chodipilli Nagalakshrni Nagu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 8 November, 2022

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
               WRIT PETITION No.14132 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 acts of the respondents particularly the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from her land in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents covered by Survey No.356/2 of Rambilli Village, Visakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice under any Statute and without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order as opposed to Law, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Constitutional guarantees and to consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land without following due process of law ..."

When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court

has passed an Order on 07.05.2015, which is as follows:

„Notice before admission..

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced instructions stating that the part of the subject land is being used for burial ground and also as „Chakali Cheruvu‟ and he seeks time for filing counter-affidavit.

Since, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted the subject land in the year, 1986 and is in possession of the same by paying taxes and since there is an attempt of dispossession, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with respect to the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.356/2 of Rambilli Village, Visakhapatnam District, for a period of Six Weeks.

Post after six(06) weeks in the Motion List for filing counter‟.

The petitioner‟s claim is that the respondents are

attempting to dispossess the petitioner from her land without

issuing any notice, conducting any enquiry and passing any

order.

The respondent No.4 filed counter, denying the contention

of the petitioner that the suit schedule land as per the revenue

records i.e., Diglot, registered as „Chakali Revulu(Government

Poramboke land)‟ and also covered under Prohibited list with

nearly measuring the land in an extent of Ac.35.00 cents and at

present the subject land is vested with the Government. The

people of Rajaka Community are doing their traditional works in

part of the land and the remaining extent is utilizing as burial

ground to the Vadanarasapuram village. The petitioner has

created a story to grab the Government land and also trying to

get benefit by mis-representing the facts before the Court.

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."

As per the contents of the counter, it appears that the

respondent-authorities, have not issued any notice to the

petitioners as contended by them.

In view of the above fact and 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 dispossess or to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner