Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Posimsettimallikharjunarao, 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.1954 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 respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their properties by 3rd respondent under the guise of an impugned oral proceedings of the respondents 2 and 4 in R.S.No.19/1B1 and 39/2B1 to an extent of Ac.1-18 cents in Bhimadole Village and Mandal, West Godavari District under Land Acquisition Act and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the proceedings.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they purchased the subject property which was assigned property to their vendors by granting D-form patta. The petitioners are landless poor persons, purchased the same under possessory agreement of sale. The 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0-18 cents also in R.S.No.39/2B1 and partitioned with the petitioners 2 and 3 i.e. an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in R.S.No.19/1B1, which was purchased from Bhimadole Venkateswara Rao, S/o.late Mangaiah, Bhimadole Papamma, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Bhimadole Ramakrishna, S/o.Venkateswara Rao and Bhimadole Charan Raju, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, under agreement of sale dated 01.01.2019, for a valid consideration. Since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and their names are mutated in the 2 revenue records i.e. Adangal and Form-1B. The 1st petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0-51 cents and 2nd petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac,0-33 cents and 3rd petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-34 cents, in total they are in possession of Ac.1-18 cents. They also raised paddy crop and cultivating the land without any objection from anybody.
3. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent came to the land by claiming the subject property as the Government land and made an attempt to acquire the subject land to issue D-form pattas to the landless poor without following due process of law and the action of the respondents 3 and 4 is, illegal and arbitrary and pass an appropriate order.
4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition, produced copies of adangal and Form 1-B issued by the Revenue Authorities besides production of the possessory agreement of sale including patta granted in favour of the original vendor and requested to issue a direction as prayed for, whereas, learned Government Pleader for respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for issuance of writ of Mandamus and requested to dismiss the petition.
35 It is an admitted fact that originally, the subject land was an assigned land and these petitioners purchased the lands from three different persons as narrated above i.e. Bhimadole Venkateswara Rao, S/o.late Mangaiah, Bhimadole Papamma, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Bhimadole Ramakrishna, S/o.Venkateswara Rao and Bhimadole Charan Raju, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, under agreement of sale dated 01.01.2019. These documents are also placed on record to contend that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property as lawful purchasers from their vendors. The adangal copies produced before this Court discloses that their names are mutated in the account Nos.2378, 2390, 2392 and 2393 for different extents. Form 1-B was also issued in the name of the petitioners and their names are also mutated. The petitioners are contending that they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the respondents 3 and 4 illegally attempted to dispossess the petitioners. Admittedly the petitioners are only the purchasers of the property under possessory agreement of sale and the agreement of sale will not create any title or confer any title to the immovable property; under Section 54 of Transfer of Property; Act. At best, the respondents are entitled to claim protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act against their vendors, but not against the petitioners.
6. Accepting the contention of the petitioners, the property was assigned land originally and they purchased the same under agreement of sale and the course open to the Government to cancel pattas by invoking Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Assigned 4 Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act IX of 1977 and resume the land for violation of conditions of patta in respect of proceeding against the petitioners and their vendors, contrary to it, the respondents 3 and 4 attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property without following due process of law. Therefore, the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in attempting to dispossess the petitioners is contrary to 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. 7 Recently, the Apex Court, on January 8, 2020, ruled that 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. A bench of justice Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, 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".
8 Therefore, by applying the principle in the above judgments, it is appropriate to direct the respondents not to 1 (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769 2 1975 SCR 299 3 1977 SCR (2) 232 4 1968 AIR 702 5 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. 9 With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 11.02.2020 KA 6