Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Chintam Pentamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 June, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.11900 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from their agricultural land in Sy.No. 377-9 to an extent of Ac. 1.20 cents, Sy.No. 292-2 to an extent of Ac. 0.66 cents, Sy.No. 266-6 to an extent of Ac. 0.34 cents, Sy.No. 266-4 to an extent of Ac. 0-62 cents, total extent of Ac. 2.82 cents situated at Nandigudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District in the name of allotting House sites under Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu Program without giving any notice and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300-A Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner's land shall not be assigned to the third parties in the name of Navaratnalu..."
The case of the petitioners is that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Koya) community. The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No. 377-9 to an extent of Ac. 1.20 cents, Sy.No. 292-2 to an extent of Ac. 0.66 cents, Sy.No. 266-6 to an extent of Ac. 0.34 cents, Sy.No. 266-4 to an extent of Ac. 0-62 cents, total extent of Ac. 2.82 cents situated at Nandigudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. Originally the land belonged to husband of the 1st petitioner by name Chintam Brahmadevudu @ Brahmaiah S/o Pitchaiah. Her husband inherited the said property by way of succession. The husband of the 1st petitioner died on 21.04.2010 and after death of her husband the petitioners became the absolute owners of the land. The Revenue Authorities mutated the name of the husband of the 1st petitioner in all revenue records, but they could not get mutation of their names in the revenue records. On 28.05.2021 and 14.06.2021 the revenue authorities have visited the land of the petitioners and took measurements by 2 conducting survey. When the petitioner approached the authorities, they stated that they are going to assign the land of the petitioners to the land less poor for providing house sites under Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu Programme. Therefore, the petitioners approached the 4th respondent and requested not to dispossess the petitioners from the land. Hence there is a threat of dispossession from the subject land of the petitioners. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.
Though the petitioners 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, 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."
Hence, recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue placed on record the written instructions in Rc.B/79/2021, dated 18.06.2021 and fairly submitted that the 1 AIR 2004 SC 4609 2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299 3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 3 respondents are not interfering with possession of the petitioners property, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners, 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: 24-06-2021 KK 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITON NO.11900 of 2021 Date: 24-06-2021 KK