Allowed

Bellamkonda Surya Venkata Satyavathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Aug 2021WP/15707/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by an agricultural land owner against dispossession under the Navaratnalu Programme. The court held that forcible dispossession without following due process of law violates Article 300-A and directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner until legal proceedings are initiated.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by due process of law.

Bellamkonda Surya Venkata Satyavathi, Vs The State… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITON NO.15707 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶4

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent authorities in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural land in Sy.No.734-1 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated at Chamakuripalem Village, Lingaboina Cherla Revenue Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District for allotting house sites under Navaratnalu Programme, without giving any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural land without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without following due process of law and pass such other order.…”

¶5

The petitioner’s case in brief is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1 situated at Chamakuripalem Village, Lingaboina Cherla Revenue Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. Originally, the property belonged to their ancestors. The petitioner inherited the property by way of intestate succession and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance from anybody from any corner and her name is also mutated in revenue records like Adangal, 1-B register and obtained Pattadar pass book and title deed etc., she has been paying taxes to the Government. While so, on 12.07.2021 the revenue authorities visited the subject land and took measurements by conducting survey. When the petitioner questioned about the same, they replied that they are going to assign the land to landless poor persons under the scheme “Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu”. The petitioner approached the

¶6

¶7

4^th respondent and requested him not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Again, on 23.07.2021 the revenue authorities made certain markings without following due procedure and without giving any notice, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

The petitioner produced e-Pattadar pass book and title deed to the property in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.734-1 situated at Chamakuripalem Village, Lingaboina Cherla Revenue Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District and latest adangals for the fasali 1431 would clinchingly establish prima facie that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property vide entries in column Nos.12 and 13. Thus, the petitioner substantiated her case that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property by producing satisfactory documentary evidence and she cannot be dispossessed from the land, except by due process of law.

¶9

It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly as held 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:-

¶10

“…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.”

¶11

1 AIR 2004 SC 4609

¶12

2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

¶13

3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

¶14

¶15

By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment to the present facts of the case, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶16

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.

¶17

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 04-08-2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

WRIT PETITON NO.15707 of 2021