Allowed

Veerla Nagamunaiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2020WP/5523/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that forcibly dispossessing citizens without due process violates Article 300A. Upon receiving assurance of due process, the Court directed respondents not to take coercive steps and disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to take any coercive steps except by due process of law; Writ Petition disposed of at the stage of admission.

Veerla Nagamunaiah Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.5523 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 respondents in interfering with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of House property bearing D.No. 1-64/A (New No. 1-24) covered by Assessment No.97 (New Assessment No.24), constructed in an extent of Ac. 0.55 cents of Gramakantam land in R.S.No.59/1 of Bokinala Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere from the above referred lands in the interest of justice.

¶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

“…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

¶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 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: 05-03-2020 IS

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITON NO.5523 of 2020

¶20