Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mamillapalli Radhakrishna vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 October, 2024
APHC010361102014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 29338 OF 2014
Between:
Mamillapalli Radhakrishna ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
2. KANDA SRINIVASU SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (KS AND WG)
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 3rd respondent in issuing the
proceedings in R.O.C.No.A3/6744/2014, Dt 22.08.2014, so far as to the
Petitioners lands and thereby insisting petitioner to vacate from the lands in
an extent of Ac.15.73 cents in Sy.No.292 of Velgapadu Village,
Veerabhadrapuram Grampanchayat, Chintalpudi Mandal, West Godavari
District is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of provisions under Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987
and rules framed there under Indian Trust Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and
300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to
interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land in an
extent of Ac.15.73 cents in Sy.No.292 of Velgapadu Village,
Veerabhadrapuram Grampanchayat, Chintalpudi Mandal, at Chintalpudi
Mandal West Godavari District and pass such other orders...."
2. Heard Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. Shaik Rasheed Ahammed, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, Endowments for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 3rd
respondent and his men insisting the petitioner to vacate from the subject
lands without issuing any notice and hand over the possession, which is highly
illegal and arbitrary. 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:-
"...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: 29.10.2024.
KK
AIR 2004 SC 4609
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
