Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
"..... To Issue A Writ vs Unknown on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
W.P.Nos.16804, 16805, 16807 and 16810 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:-
The Writ Petition No.16804 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"..... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 4th Respondent in trying to disposes the petitioner from his house situated in D.No.8-10/1-1 (Assessment No.1086545707) in an extent of 440 Sq.Yds situated situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No 70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and contradictive to Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent not to disposes the petitioner from his house situated in D.No.8-10/1-1 (Assessment No.1086545707) in an extent of 440 Sq.Yds situated at Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No 70, situated in Sy.No.23 Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam......."
The Writ Petition No.16805 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"..... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 4th Respondent in trying to disposes the petitioner from her house of the Petitioner situated in D.No.8-10/8/1/1 (Assessment No.1086552057) in an extent of 150 Sq.Yds situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No.70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and contradictive to Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent not to disposes the petitioner from her house situated in D.No.8-10/1-1 (Assessment No.1086545849) in an extent of 150 Sq.Yds situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No.70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam......."2
The Writ Petition No.16807 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"..... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 4th Respondent in trying to disposes the petitioner from his house situated in D.No.8-10/1/1 (Assessment No.1086545707) in an extent of 440 Sq.Yds situated situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No 70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and contradictive to Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent not to disposes the petitioner from his house situated in D.No.8-10/1/1 (Assessment No.1086545707) in an extent of 440 Sq.Yds situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No.70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam......."
The Writ Petition No.16810 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"..... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 4th Respondent in trying to disposes the petitioner from his house situated in D.No.8-10/1 (Assessment No.1086545814) in an extent of 150 Sq.Yds situated situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No.70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and contradictive to Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent not to disposes the petitioner from his house situated in D.No.2-20/1/2 (Assessment No.1086528470 in an extent of 150 Sq.Yds situated in Sy.No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No.70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam......."
2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, this Court find it expedient to decide these matters by a common order.
3
3. The facts in all these writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore, W.P.No.16804 of 2024 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are referred to for convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over an extent of 440 sq.yards situated in Survey No.23, Varalakshmi Nagar, Ward No.70, Cheemalapalle Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam for more than 25 years. The ancestors of the petitioner initially constructed a tatched house in the subject land. Later, the petitioner constructed a ACC sheet roof shed in subject land. After the constructions, the 3rd respondent authorities are laying house tax to the said house vide Assessment No.1086545707 and allotted Door Number:8-10/1-1, and obtained power connection from power supply authorities vide Service No.1164932277001472. On 20.07.2024, some of the officials of the 4th respondent staff came to property and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the house without any prior intimation or notice and without following the due process of law. When the petitioner along with family members protested against dispossession, the 4th respondent staff left the subject 4 property stating that they will come with more force and machinery, and accordingly, on 26.07.2024, they came to subject property along with men and machinery trying to dispossess the petitioner from his existing residential house. Then, when the petitioner along with family members resisted the action of the 4th respondent staff with the help of the neighbors, the staff of the 4th respondent went away stating that they will come with more force and take possession of the subject property. Questioning the action of the 4th respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioner in W.P.No.16840 of 2024, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in other writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.16805, 16807 and 16810 of 2024.
6. Heard Mr.Sata Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr.Batchu Jagadish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
5
7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ancestors of the petitioners are absolute owners of the subject property since generations and the 3 rd respondent assessed the subject property as a private property. He further submits that the 4th respondent neither issued any notice nor any proceedings to the petitioners before coming to the subject properties. Again, on 26.07.2024, the 4 th respondent officials entered to subject properties along with the men and machinery. He further submits that as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India "No person shall be deprived of his property". Hence, illegal forceful dispossession of petitioners' house by the 4 th respondent is not permissible under law. Even under the Encroachment Act, the petitioners are entitled to notice, but the respondent authorities without following due process of law, trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent furnished a copy of instructions issued by 4th respondent and submits that, Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam is a 6 public religious Institution published under Section 6(a)(iii) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/87. The temple and its properties were already registered under Section 43 of the A.P.Endowments Act, 30/87. He further submits that any sale, lease or gift of any property belonging to a Religious Institution made without prior permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada or Government are null and void under Section 80 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/87. He further submits that the Cheemalapalli village ws declared as "not an Inam Estate" under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Hence, the provisions of A.P.Andhra Area Inams Act 37/1956 were made applicable to the village. The Special Dy.Tahsildar (Inams), Visakhapatnam after holding suomoto enquiry in his order in A.I.A.No.55/77, dated 02.11.1978 under Section 3(3) of the A.P.Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and that the lands covered by T.D.No.1191 are Inam Lands in an Inam village belonging to an Institution namely Simhachalam Devasthanam. Hence, the lands covered in T.D.No.1191 are Inam lands, the respondent Devasthanam or the Government made absolute owners of the 7 landed properties covered in T.D.No.1191 of Cheemalapalli village and the survey No.23 of Cheemalapalli village measuring to an extent of Ac.3.68 cents covered in T.D.No.1191. Accordingly, the lands covered in Survey No.23 noted in the Section 43 Register maintained by the Devasthanam and also noted in the prohibitary list under Section 22(A)(1)(C) registration Act. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel requests this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.
9. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the material on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions, with a direction to the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject properties, except by due process of law.
10. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsels. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 06.08.2024 BMS