Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Subba Narsaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 February, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Petition No.4045 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.690-1 and Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.539-1 of Balighattam village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.690-1 and Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.539-1 of Balighattam village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. It is the case of petitioner that on application of grandfather of petitioner Lagudu Nookayya, for grant of land, the then Tahsildar, Narsipatnam Mandal, granted land in an extent of Ac.2.89 cents in Sy.No.690-1 of Balighattam village, Narsipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 26.07.1940, since then, grandfather of petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land, till his death. After demise of Laugdu Nookayya, his sons Lagudu Gajjiyya and Lagudu Achchayya succeeded the property. After death of Lagudu Gajjiyya, his sons i.e. petitioner and his two brothers came into possession of an extent of Ac.0.48 cents each and the petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.46 cents, their names were mutated in revenue records. Father of petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of another extent of Ac.3.48 cents in Sy.No.539-1 of Balighattam village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having granted patta 2 by 4th respondent. After the death of his father, petitioner and his two brothers succeeded an extent of Ac.0.58 cents each, pattadar passbook was also issued in their favour, their names were mutated in revenue records.
3. While the matter stood thus, on 06.02.2020, 4th respondent and his staff threatening the petitioner to evict from his land. Such action on the part of respondents is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue direction as stated above.
4. During hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition, whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), fairly accepted to follow due process of law, to evict or dispossess the petitioner, requested to pass appropriate order.
5. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of land in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.690-1 and Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.539-1 of Balighattam village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having succeeded the same for his father. Even assuming for a moment, that the land is required by the government for any purpose, when petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of land, he cannot be dispossessed or evicted, without following due process of law, as held by Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. V. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs1. Therefore, respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.690-1 and Ac.0.58 cents in 1 (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769 3 Sy.No.539-1 of Balighattam village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, except by due process of law.
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 20.02.2020 Rvk