Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Polishetty Sri Babu Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 February, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.2702 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the respondents' authorities in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the land in total extent of Ac.3-27 cents in Sy.Nos.42/1, 43/2, 43/6, 43/7, 43/10, 43/3, 43/4, 43/5, 43/8, 43/9 and 42/2 situated at Nelivada Village, Pishinipanchayat, Ranasthalam Mandal of Srikakulam District, without issuing any notice and without following any due process of law and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents' authorities not to take any coercive steps without following due process of law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land to an extent of total Ac.3-27 cents in Sy.Nos.42/1, 43/2, 43/6, 43/7, 43/10, 43/3, 43/4, 43/5, 43/8, 43/9 and 42/2 of Nelivada village, Pishinipanchayat, Ranasthalam Mandal of Srikakulam District, having purchased the same from the lawful owner Sri Perla Santhosh Kumar, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2506 of 2006, dated 05.12.2006, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ranasthalam, Srikakulam District. Since the date of purchase, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any threat and hindrance. The respondent authorities issued pattadar pass 2 book and title deed bearing No.577304 in his favour and uploaded his name in Maa Bhoomi, the official website of the Government.
3. The vendor Perla Santhosh Kumar, purchased the above land from different owners vide registered document Nos.757/2005 and 758/2005, registered with Sub-Registrar, Ranasthalam, obtained pattadar pass book and title deed for the said land. Thus, the land is purely private land. The petitioner claiming to be a senior citizen and suffering from old age ailments, he is undergoing treatment at Hyderabad, but in his absence, on 20.01.2020 the 3rd respondent along with his sub- ordinates came to his land and took measurements. Later, on 22.01.2020, the petitioner went to the office of 2nd respondent to ascertain the facts, but the 2nd respondent is not appraising correct information and came to know that 3rd respondent, as per the instructions of 2nd respondent only resorting to indulge such acts. Thus, the action of the respondent-authorities in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of this petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction not to take coercive steps except by due process of law.
4. During hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record the written instructions dated 06.01.2020 and contended that the land in Sy.Nos.42/1, 43/2, 43/6, 43/7, 43/10, 43/3, 3 43/4, 43/5, 43/8, 43/9 and 42/2 of Nelivada village, Pishinipanchayat, Ranasthalam Mandal of Srikakulam District, is a Government land, classified as "Gayalu" and D-Pattas were issued to the needy people in the village and the land is also included in 22-A register of the Registration Act. The land was assigned to various persons as shown in the table.
Sy.No./ Old Sy.No. Classification Name of the Extent
S.D.No. pattadar Ac.
42-1 42-1 Ryotwari Sagu Jammu 1-12
Punja Mahalaxmi
42-2 Ryotwari Sagu Teku 0-70
Punja Mahalakshmma
43-2 43-1 Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.33
Punja Appalanaidu
43-3A Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.13
Punja Appalanaidu
43-4A Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.11
Punja Appalanaidu
43-5A Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.06
Punja Appalanaidu
43-6 Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.32
Punja Appalanaidu
43-7 Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.25
Punja Appalanaidu
43-8A Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.08
Punja Appalanaidu
43-9A Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.06
Punja Appalanaidu
43-10 Ryotwari Sagu Yenduva 0.10
Punja Appalanaidu
5. Thus, the petitioner purchased the Government land classified as Gayalu and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to claim any protection and requested to dismiss the petition.
6. As seen from the material on record, the petitioner's predecessors in title purchased the property under two different sale deeds and this petitioner purchased the same from the said Santhosh Kumar under registered sale deed dated 05.12.2006 for Rs.6,07,000/-. His name is also mutated in the revenue 4 records. Pattadar pass-book and title deed are also issued in favour of petitioner and the said documents are placed on record to substantiate his contentions. Further, Form 1-B was also issued in the name of this petitioner and the land in various survey numbers referred above is in possession of petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is in possession of the property. But the main contention of the petitioner is that if the land is a Government land classified as Gayalu, it ought not to have shown in the table above. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the course open to the Government is, to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007, without following such procedure, the action of respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the subject land is, illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007.
7. The documentary evidence placed on record would clinchingly establish that petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject land claiming title through his vendor, and in such a case, he cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law, as held by Apex Court in Rame Goda (dead) by Lrs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1, Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab2, Ram Rattan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3, and recently in Munshi Ram V. Delhi Administration4.
1 (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769 2 1975 SCR 299 3 1977 SCR (2) 232 4 1968 AIR 702 5
8. Recently, the Apex Court, on January 8, 2020, ruled that to forcible dispossession of 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. A bench in its verdict said: "In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the state could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law." The bench referred to an earlier verdict, to say it has been held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right".
9. Therefore, by applying the principle in the above judgment, it is appropriate to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law i.e., invoking Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law i.e., invoking Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 11.02.2020 Note:
Furnish copy by 17.02.2020 B/O KA 6