Allowed

P. Varalakshmi at Varahalamma v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Oct 2021WP/23622/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 declaring the Tahsildar's action of interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession of agricultural land as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and directed the revenue officer not to interfere without due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the petitioner's interference with possession is illegal; direction to Respondent No. 3 not to interfere with peaceful possession except by due process of law.

P. Varalakshmi at Varahalamma… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23622 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural land in Sy.No.7-3B2 admeasuring Ac.0-79 cents situated in Nilavathi Village, Palasa Mandal of Srikakulam District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent not to interfere with the petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment of her aforesaid land and pass such other order ...”

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.79 cents situated in Survey No.7-3B2, Nilavathi Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District having acquired the same through succession after death of her husband and she has been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption. The then Tahsildar-3^rd respondent, after enquiring with regard to her right, title and possession over the subject land, issued pattadar passbooks and also mutated her name in the revenue records viz., Adangal, Pahani and Form-1B. While things stood thus, on 08.09.2021 and 29.09.2021 the subordinates of the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar Office visited her land, took measurement and started planting poles. When she questioned them, they instructed her to approach the 3^rd respondent. On 04.10.2021, she approached the 3^rd respondent and questioned him as to why they are visiting her land, measuring land and trying to plant

¶7

¶8

stones. Then, she was informed that as they required the subject land, she should vacate the same and handed over to them. Hence, interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of this petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as prayed by this petitioner.

¶9

The documents produced before this Court i.e., Form-1B, pattadar passbook and title deed, e-passbook and adangal copy clearly establish that this petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Hence, the action of respondent No.3 to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Since the petitioner is in settled possession, she cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 .

¶10

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the highhanded action of respondent No.3 to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land to an extent of Ac.0.79 cents situated in Survey No.7-3B2, Nilavathi Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, is illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, respondent No.3 is directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land except by due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11