Disposed

Pamarthi Nagamalleswari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2020WP/2234/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the respondents' insistence for him to vacate his landed property without following due process of law. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the violation of Article 300-A, this Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps except through due process of law and disposed of the petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps to vacate the petitioner's property except by following the due process of law.

Pamarthi Nagamalleswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.2234 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 insisting the petitioner to vacate from the petitioner’s property landed admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in R.S.No.440 situated in Edupugallu of Kankipadu Mandal of Krishna District, without following due process of law, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over petitioner’s landed property.

¶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 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: 07-02-2020 IS

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITON NO.2234 of 2020

¶20