Petitioner challenged via writ of mandamus the respondents' interference with her claim to agricultural land, asserting possession since 1960 and reliance on positive photographs. The Court dismissed the petition due to absence of documentary proof like adangal copies to substantiate the possession claim.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 PETITON NO.4536 of 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus , questioning the action of respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land i.e., lemon garden with 200 fruit bearing trees situated in Poramboke Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, after lapse of 60 years, without following due procedure established by law, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner herself and her husband are eking out their livelihood on agriculture by raising lemon garden in Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.90 of Poramboke Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. Prior to that the said land was covered with bushes, stones and cheeky trees etc., While she is cultivating the land by raising lemon garden and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the year 1960, the 4th respondent suddenly came to the subject land along with his staff on 14-02-2020 at 12.00 Noon and threatened to vacate the petitioner from the land on the ground that it is a ‘government land’ required for assignment to the landless poor persons. It is further contended that the land of the petitioner was acquired earlier and the petitioner being a layman and poor, is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the action of the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner based on the positive photographs contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property since the year 1960 and she became landless poor as her
2
land was acquired by the Government. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioner sought a direction against the respondents. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue disputed the possession on the ground that no document is produced before this Court.
As seen from the material on record, except an assertion in the writ affidavit that the petitioner is in possession of the property by raising lemon garden to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and filed a positive photograph and a copy of Aadhar card to establish that she is in possession of the property, no adangal copy or any other document is produced before this Court to substantiate the case of the petitioner. The said land cannot be identified based on the positive photographs and anybody can go and take a snap and file such photographs.
Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof to establish that this petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property as claimed by her, to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, without following due process of law, does not arise. Hence, I find no ground to allow this writ petition.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 26-02-2020 IS
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.4536 of 2020
Date: 26-02-2020
IS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner established her possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land to warrant issuance of writ of mandamus despite lack of documentary proof.
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed in the absence of admissible evidence substantiating the petitioner's claim of possession.
Petitioner
Respondents
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
