Disposed

Guduguntla Kumari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2020WP/2131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On cause title, this Court directed the respondents not to dispossess petitioners from specific land parcels in Krishna District under the A.P. R & L Act 2013 without following due process of law, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding Article 300A.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to dispossess petitioners from the subject land except by due process of law.

Guduguntla Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.2131 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 in intending to acquire the land of petitioners in extent of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.62/10, Ac.2.00cents in Sy.No.62/19, Ac.1.24 cents in Sy.No.62/11 and Ac.3.03 cents in Sy.No.62/5 respectively situated in Chillakallu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District without issuing any notice or opportunity and without following due process of law as abitrary, illegal and contrary to the provsions of the A.P. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquistion, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶5

Though the petitioners made several allegations in the writ affidavit, the truth or otherwise in those allegations need not be enquired into by this Court, in view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the respondents 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

“…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.”

¶8

Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

for Revenue that there is no proposal to dispossess the petitioners, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, except by due process of law.

¶10