Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Uggina Bulli Babu, S/O. Late Chittodu ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 November, 2024
APHC010068772013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 11063 OF 2013
Between:
Uggina Bulli Babu, S/o. Late Chittodu (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
4. NVS PRASADA VARMA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in
dispossessing the petitioner from the agriculture lands situated in Sy.No.57
part admeasuring Ac. 3.04 cents and in Sy.No.56 admeasuring Ac.0.35 cents
of Marrivalasa Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal,
arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein not to
interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by
the petitioner nor not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property and
pass such other orders...."
2. Heard Mr. B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. N.V.S.Prasada Varma learned Standing Counsel for the Endowments for
the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 2nd
respondent with the help of respondents 3 to 5 is interfering with the
petitioners' possession of the property to an extent of Ac. 3.04 cents in
Sy.No.57 and Ac. 0.35 cents in Sy.No.56 claiming that the subject land is a
temple land, which has been gifted by the then Rahas/ Rurals. Hence, the
present writ petition came to be filed.
4. Though the petitioner 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 Standing Counsel for the respondents that the respondent authorities
will follow due process of law.
5. 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."
6. Recording submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
respondents as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject
property, 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.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the
consent of both the counsel. However, this order will not preclude the
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: 12.11.2024.
KK
AIR 2004 SC 4609
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
