Petla Chandrasekhar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 10356 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10356 AP
Judgement Date : 15 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Petla Chandrasekhar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 November, 2024

 APHC010449802015
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                                 [3310]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                 FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                           PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 18004 OF 2015

Between:

Petla Chandrasekhar, and Others                                                ...PETITIONER(S)

                                              AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                                      ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

   1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)

   2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE

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 nd Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in unilaterally treating private st land of the petitioners, an extent of 300 Sq.yds in Sy.No.146/1 -Plot No.17 (of the 1 nd petitioner), an extent of 220 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.168/2 - Plot No.132 (of the 2 rd petitioner), an extent of 220 Sq.yds in Sy.No.147 - Plot No.121 (of the 3 petitioner) th and an extent of 220 Sq.yds in Sy.No.146/2 - Plot No.93 ( of the 4 petitioner), situated in Venkatapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, nd covered by D-Block, as belonging to the 2 respondent temple and interfering therewith and making efforts to dispossess the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and nd consequently direct the 2 respondent to refrain from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands of the petitioners and pass such other orders."

2. The precise case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute

owners and possessors of the subject land. Their predecessors in title had

purchased the same under various registered sale deeds. While the matter

stood thus, the 2nd respondent temple are frequently interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property without

following due process of law without issuing any notice or no opportunity has

been given to submit objections. The official engaged workmen to dug the

roads and started removing the boundary stones and also excavated pits for

planting saplings in the subject land unilaterally declared it as private property

of the temple, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, inaction of the

respondents is questioned in this writ petition.

3. Heard V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Government Pleader, Endowments for the respondents.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the

contents urged in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the respondents

without following due process of law and without issuing any prior notice

threatened the petitioners with dire consequences and trying to dig trenches in the subject land of the petitioners without there being any valid reasons.

Hence, requested to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the

respondents submitted that the respondent authorities shall follow due

process of law in the matter. Hence, requested to pass appropriate orders in

this writ petition.

6. 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. Whereas, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Endowments agrees to follow the due process of law,

in case of dispossession.

7. 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, wherein 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."

AIR 2004 SC 4609

1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

8. Hence, recording the submission of the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Endowments and in view of the judgments of Apex

Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the

petitioner, except by due process of law.

9. 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.

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