Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Maruprolu Srinivas Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 February, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Petition No.4331 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the order of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in attempting to evict the petitioner from land admeasuring 338 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.272/2 situated Maruproluvaripalem village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he acquired land under registered partition deed vide document bearing No.2552/2019 dated 03.06.2019 registered with Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Bapatla. Prior to the said partition, the ancestors of petitioner were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any interference whatsoever. After partition, the petitioner is continuing in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, raised RCC roofed building after obtaining loan from Bank of Baroda, Bapatla by mortgage. Thus, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property. In support of his contention, he placed on record partition deed, tax receipts and Aadhar card to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land. Hence, the alleged attempt to dispossess the petitioner who is in settled possession is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue direction as claimed.
3. Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) placed on record, written instructions dated 23.02.2020 alleging that the family members of petitioner executed the document dated 03.06.2019, including the government land in Sy.No.272-2 of Maruproluvaripalem village, claiming that it is ancestral property. The 2 land in dispute is government land and the parties who executed the document, have no right to divide the same, requested to pass appropriate order.
4. No doubt there is a partition among the brothers of petitioner, registered partition deed dated 03.06.2019; bearing document No.2552/2019 was executed; petitioner constructed RCC building by obtaining loan by mortgaging the property with Bank of Baroda; property tax is being paid to Gram Panchayat, tax receipts are also placed on record to substantiate that the petitioner is in possession of the property. The contention of respondents is that the petitioner is trespasser of government land in Sy.No.272-2 and also alleged that he is trying to occupy the valuable property. The contention of the respondents is irreconcilable, since the petitioner was already described as trespasser, again question of trying to occupy the valuable property, does not arise.
5. In any view of the matter, the allegations made in the written instructions are clear that the petitioner allegedly trespassed into government land. Even assuming that the contention of respondents is true, the remedy open to the respondents is to follow the procedure prescribed under law, without following due process of law, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land in dispute. Therefore, the action of respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled legal possession as laid down in Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. V. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs1. Hence, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute, except by due process of law, leaving it open to the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
1(2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769 3
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no costs.
7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 29.02.2020 Rvk