In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court disposed of the matter at the stage of admission. The respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their land unless due process of law was followed.
Directed respondents not to dispossess petitioners from the property 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 JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.2410 of 2020
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:
“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the respondents 2 to 5 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their respective sites in different plots vide pattas Nos.01, 03, 06, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 37, 40 in Layout in R.S.No. 424-2A of Apparao Peta Village H/o Gollagudem Gram Panchayat, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District for reassigning and issuance of the house site pattas to the weaker section under the Scheme of Navaratnalu without following due process of law as illegal irregular arbitrary and violative of the Settled Principles of Law and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to not to dispossess the petitioners from their sites vide pattas Nos.01, 03, 06, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 37, 40 in Layout in R.S.No424-2A of Apparao Pea Village H/o Gollagudern Gram Panchayat, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District.”
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land without following due process of law.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the land and requested to pass appropriate orders.
Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “ Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by
MSM,J WP_2410_2020
2
L.Rs .1 ”. Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioners from the property, except by due process of law.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
18.02.2020 Ksp
1 2004 (1) SCC 769
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct respondents not to dispossess petitioners from their land without following due process of law.
Whether the writ petition deserves disposal at the stage of admission by consent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.Referred¶9
Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.
Petitioners
Respondents 2 to 5
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
