The court held that petitioners in settled possession of the schedule property cannot be dispossessed or evicted by respondents without following due process of law, relying on Apex Court precedent.
Direction issued to respondents not to dispossess petitioners from schedule properties except by due process of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.11260 of 2020
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, is filed questioning the action of the respondents, particularly respondent Nos.2 to 7, in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their schedule properties bearing plot Nos.115 and 114 situated in Sy.No.197/3 of Itukalapalli village, Akuthotapalli Panchayat, Ananthapuram Rural Mandal and District, without following due process of law, to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct respondents, particularly respondent Nos.2 to 7, not to dispossess the petitioners from their schedule properties bearing plot Nos.115 and 114 situated in Sy.No.197/3 of Itukalapalli village, Akuthotapalli Panchayat, Ananthapuram Rural Mandal and District.
1
entered into the plots highhandedly, tried to evict the petitioners forcibly and demolish the constructions, without any notice. Such action on the part of respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, requested to issue direction as prayed for.
M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs .
2
___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
10th July, 2020 Tsy
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners in settled possession of property can be evicted without following due process of law.
Whether direction is necessary to restrain respondents from dispossessing petitioners summarily.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rema Gowda (dead) by Lrs. V. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs.Followed¶10
Rema Gowda (dead) by Lrs. V. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
