Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kaligineti Sudha vs The State Of Ap on 27 February, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.4547 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondents in insisting the petitioners to vacate from the agricultural land, admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.193, Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.207 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.207, situated at Gundepalli Village of Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, without considering their objections, dt.05-02-2020 and also notices in Roc.No.e-14/2020, dt.12-01-2020, issued by the 4th respondent for resumption of the land in dispute, without following due process of law, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land.
The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.193, Ac.0.70 cents in Sy.No.207, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.207, situated at Gundepalli Village of Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, having acquired the same from their ancestors. The ancestors of the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, since time immemorial, by raising rain-fed crops, fodder grass crops and after their demise, the petitioners inherited their respective land and since then they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same, without any interruption from anybody at any point of time. 2
While the matter stood thus, notices in Roc.No.e-14/2020, dt.12-01-2020 under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dt.14-09-2012 for resumption of land for providing house sites under "Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu"
Scheme to the eligible landless poor, by stating that the petitioners encroached the said lands and directed to show cause within fifteen (15) days. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted reply/objections, dt.05-02-2020, but the 4th respondent without passing any final order, insisting the petitioners to vacate the land, thereby the action of 4th respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petitioner. Whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue fairly conceded that the 4th respondent would consider the reply/objections submitted by the petitioners and requested to pass appropriate order.
Admittedly, notices dt.26-01-2020 in Roc.No.e-14/2020, dt.12-01-2020 were issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, alleging that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land as 'encroachers' as mentioned at column No.5 of the schedule annexed to the writ petition. But, the said notices were issued under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dt.14-09-2012 alleging that the petitioners encroached the land specifically mentioned the writ petition, called upon them to submit their explanation.
The petitioners submitted reply/objections on 05-02-2020 raising various contentions, but, without considering the reply/objections, the 4th respondent issued orders impugned in the 3 writ petition insisting the petitioners to vacate the land in dispute, during pendency of reply/objections of petitioners.
The impugned notices were not issued either under A.P. Land Encroachment Act or any other law except as per G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dt.14-09-2012, but described the petitioners as 'encroachers' of the land in dispute. When the petitioners are described as 'encroachers', the procedure to be followed by the respondents is prescribed under law and not by issuing notices under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assn-I) Department, dt.14-09-2012, the remedy available to the respondents is under different enactments. Even otherwise when the petitioners submitted explanations, the 4th respondent cannot take forcible possession of the land in dispute.
In any view of the matter, when the petitioners are in settled possession of the subject property, they cannot be evicted, except by due process of law.
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."
1
Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997 2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299 3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 4 Applying the same principles to the present facts of the case, the 4th respondent is directed not to forcibly evict the petitioners, except 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: 27.02.2020 IS 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.4547 OF 2020 Date: 27-02-2020.
IS