Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chundru Lakshmi, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 February, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.3634 of 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their respective house sites admeasuring Ac.0-01 ½ cents each in S.Nos.83 and 84 bearing Plot Nos.33, 119, 126, 127, 138, 139, 173 and 174 situated in Ippilivanipalem village, Chintagatla Gram Panchayat, Pendurti Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, for the purpose of allotment of house sites to weaker sections under "Navaratnalu- Pedalandariki Illu" scheme, without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners' possession over the subject property".
2. Though the petitioners 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 Revenue that the respondent authorities will follow due process of law.
2
3. 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."
4. Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue, as there is no proposal to interfere with the possession of the subject land, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps, except by due process of law.
5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, 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.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 17-02-2020 KA 1 (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769 2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299 3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 3