Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Jayapal Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 10 March, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.5088 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of 3rd respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.10/3 situated at Akkampeta village, Sri Avadhutha Kasi Nayana Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.10/3 situated at Akkampeta village, Sri Avadhutha Kasi Nayana Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law.
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession of the land, requested to pass appropriate orders.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land, having succeeded the same from his ancestors who was granted D.K patta. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, except by due process of law, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by 2 L.Rs.1". Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.10/3 situated at Akkampeta village, Sri Avadhutha Kasi Nayana Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, except by due process of law.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 10.03.2020 Rvk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769