Allowed

Gollavilli Paiditalli Naidu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2020WP/2253/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps to dispossess the petitioner land for the Pedalandariki Illu scheme without initiating land acquisition proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents on Article 300-A. The petition was disposed of with the consent of counsel, leaving no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to take any coercive steps to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

Gollavilli Paiditalli Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.2253 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus , questioning the action of respondents in resorting to dispossess the petitioner for the purpose of acquiring land for distribution of house sites under ‘Pedalandariki Illu” scheme, without initiating land acquisition proceedings, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the land in dispute.

¶5

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.

¶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

1 Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997

¶9

2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

¶10

3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

¶11

¶12

Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue, as there is no proposal to interfere with the 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 Note: Issue CC by 20-02-2020. B/o. IS

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITON NO.2253 of 2020

¶20