Disposed

Smt Tummala Sujatha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2020WP/11239/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition filed under Article 226, the Supreme Court, at the stage of admission, directed respondents not to take coercive steps or evict the petitioner from the property without adhering to the due process of law, relying on constitutional principles and cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to take any coercive steps or evict the petitioner without following the due process of law.

Smt Tummala Sujatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.11239 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus , declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.4 in trying to interfere into the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property including eviction/dispossession covered in S.No.71/4 in an extent of Ac.2-00 cents of Erukunaidupalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by issuing pattas in the name of third parties without following the due process of Law, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice curtailing the right as guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess or evict the petitioner from the subject land.

¶5

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.

¶6

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:-

¶7

1 Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997

¶8

2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

¶9

3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

¶10

¶11

“…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.”

¶12

Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject land, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps, except by due process of law.

¶13

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.

¶14

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶15

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Date: 13.07.2020 IKN

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITON NO.11239 of 2020

¶20