Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Mindi James Gideon Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 October, 2024
APHC010466772024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24580 OF 2024
Between:
Sri. Mindi James Gideon Raju ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M.M.M. KRISHNA SANAPALA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
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 action of the respondents 3 and 4 herein
interfering unnecessarily and disturb petitioner's right over the property
without following law for the Flat No.4A in Vishnu Kireeti Apartments, having
land extent of 60 Sq.yds out of 690 Sq.yds which is undivided share situated
in Sy.No. 1460 of Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam District, A.P is illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India,
even though petitioner having approval for his Flat 4A from the 2nd respondent
authority and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere in
relation to the Flat No.4A in Vishnu Kireeti Apartments, having land extent of
60 Sq.yds out of 690 Sq.yds which is undivided share situated in Sy.No. 1460
of Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam District, A.P and pass such other
orders...."
2. Heard Mr. S. Samantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner;
learned Assistant Government Pleader, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development for the respondents 1 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that at the instance
of 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent is interfering and disturbing the physical
possession of the petitioner from the subject property. 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 Assistant Government Pleader 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:-
AIR 2004 SC 4609
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
"...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 Assistant Government 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 petitioner,
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: 28.10.2024.
KK
