Allowed

Gogineni Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Aug 2021WP/15258/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a Writ Petition seeking a stay on eviction. The Court held that petitioners in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, directing respondents accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to dispossess petitioners from property except by due process of law.

Gogineni Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.15258 OF 2021

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:-

¶6

“ to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to evict the Petitioners from their lands situated in Thukkuluru Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy No.28-4C and Ac.4.35 cents in Sy No.28-4A2 of the 1^st petitioner and Ac.0.77 cents in Sy No.28-4A1 and Ac.4.05 cents in Sy No.28-3 of the 2^nd petitioner of without following due process of law as illegal, ultravirus arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over the above mentioned lands in the interest of justice ”

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.28-4C and Ac.4.35 cents in Sy.No.28-4A2 of Thukkuluru Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District and the 2^nd petitioner who is the brother of the 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.28-4A1 and Ac.4.05 cents in Sy.No.28-3 of Thukkuluru Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District. The respondents at the instigation of local ruling party leaders are trying to evict the petitioners from the said land without

¶8

¶9

issuing any notice or following any procedure contemplated under law. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶10

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 the subject property without following due process of law.

¶11

Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the property and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶12

The petitioners in order to establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property has produced adangal for the falsi 1431 which prima facie establish that this petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Thus the petitioners prima facie proved that they are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶13

Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the petitioners are in settled 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 L.Rs .¹ ”. Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioners from their property, except by due process of law.

¶14

1 2004 (1) SCC 769

¶15

¶16

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Date:11.08.2021 tm

¶20