Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boya Venkamma Pedda Yankamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 July, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.13546 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioner from private patta land situated in Sy.No. 384 admeasuring an extent of Ac 3.42 Cents and in Sy.No 385 admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.43 Cents of Gundlakonda Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District and trying to change the nature of the said land by dispossessing the petitioner from the said land as arbitrary illegal unjust violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said land and pass such other orders.."
Though the petitioner 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. The material on record prima facie establishes that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed property.
It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly as held 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, wherein 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 1 AIR 2004 SC 4609 2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299 3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 2 constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution."
Hence, recording the submission of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner, except by due process of law.
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: 15-07-2021 KK 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITON NO.13546 of 2021 Date: 15-07-2021 KK