Maddala Jaganadha Rao, vs Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6767 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Maddala Jaganadha Rao, vs Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy ... on 6 August, 2024

 APHC010158122021
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                            [3310]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                     TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                           PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                          WRIT PETITION NO: 8904 OF 2021

Between:

Maddala Jaganadha Rao, and Others                                            ...PETITIONER(S)

                                               AND

Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple and                               ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

   1. T D PANI KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

   2. JAGADISH KUAMAR BATCHU

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking the following relief:-

st "....to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 1 respondent interfering with the possession of petitioners property in an extent of 71.76 sq.yds at D.No. 15-142/1, Lakshminagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct st the 1 respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property in an extent of 71.76 sq.yds at D.No.15-142/1, Lakshminagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam and pass such other orders....."

Though the petitioners made several allegations in the writ affidavit filed

along with the writ petition, the truth or otherwise in those allegations need not

be adjudicated by this Court, in view of the submission made by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments that the respondent

authorities will follow due process of law.

It is 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."

Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for

Endowments as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject land,

and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents

are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners, except by

due process of law.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the

consent of both the counsel. However, this order will not preclude the

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date: 06.08.2024.

KK