M.Jhansi Lakshmi, Anantapuram ... vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd 4 Ot
2022 Latest Caselaw 8595 AP

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
                WRIT PETITION No.9671 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 on part of the 4 th respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents each i.e., Plot Nos. 43 and 44 respectively of petitioners No.1 and 2 and Plots No.45 and 46 of petitioner No.3 situated in Survey Nos. 231, 208 and 207 of ltikalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal and District, without any order in writing as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents each i.e., Plot No 43 and 44 respectively of petitioners No.1 and 2 and Plots No. 45 and 46 of petitioner No. 3 situated in Suvey Nos. 231, 208 and 207 of Itikalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal and District 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 07.04.2015, which is as follows:

„The allegation of the petitioner is that taking advantage of the entries in the revenue records, at the instance of the 5 th respondent, third party interest is sought to be created with respect to the land in survey No.207, which was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their predecessors in title for more than 30 years.

In the circumstances, considering the prima facie documents, i.e., copies of registered sale deeds, filed before this Court, there shall be interim direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Ananthapur Mandal and District not to issue any pattas or assign the land in survey No.20 to any third parties, pending further orders in the writ petition.‟

The petitioners claim is only to follow the due process

of law, in case the respondents are attempting to interfere

with or dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands.

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 that they will follow due process of law, if

at all the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the

land admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents each i.e., Plot No.45 and 46

respectively in Itikalapalli Village, Anantapuram Mandal and

District.

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

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

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 at the time of

hearing 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 the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment

of the subject lands and till the pattas were existing in the name

of the petitioners, 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 : 09.11.2022 AVTP

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION No.9671 of 2015

Date : 09.11.2022

AVTP