Allowed

Sake Venkataramulu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2021WP/23648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an attempt by respondents to dispossess the petitioner from agricultural land. The Court held that forcible dispossession violates constitutional rights and directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession except through due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject land except by due process of law.

Sake Venkataramulu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23648 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land being an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in survey No.60 situated at Chinnachigularevu village Thadimarri Mandal, Anantapuram District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 12 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land..”

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in survey No.60 situated at Chinnachegularevu village and Thadimarri Mandal, Ananthapuram District, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed, bearing document No.573, dated 14.04.1984. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property without interference from any manner. The revenue authorities, after conducting detailed enquiry, mutated the name of the petitioner and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. Though the petitioner purchased the land in survey No.60, the 4^th respondent issued pattadar pass book and title deed by adding the sub division numbers. Subsequently, 4^th respondent rectifying mistakes, mutated the original survey number

¶7

¶8

as per the sale deed and the petitioner also obtained loan from the bank and till date he is paying instalments regularly.

¶9

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 came to visit the subject land and directed the petitioner to vacate the same and hand over its possession immediately to the respondents. But the petitioner did not accept the same and requested them not to interfere. However, the respondents openly declared that they will dispossess the petitioner from the subject land.

¶10

Further on 09.10.2021, respondent Nos.3 and 4 visited the subject land and causing obstructions to the petitioner from conducting agricultural operations and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and to vacate the subject land immediately. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and informed that the subject land is a private patta land and produced the documents. However, they did not heed the request of the petitioner that that there is any amount of threat to dispossess the petitioner at any time and requested to issue a direction as stated above.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property under registered sale deed and his name is mutated in the revenue records, issued pattadar pass book and title deed with Khata No.471 and also mutated his name in revenue records. A copy of adangal is placed on record to show that one Sake Venkata Ramana is pattadar and it is a D-patta land as per column No.6/7 and the adangal for fasli 1431 further disclosed that the land in Khata No.471 is recorded

¶13

¶14

in the name of Sake Venkata Ramana Narasimhudu in column Nos.12 and 13 and in column Nos.14 and 15, the nature of the acquisition is noted as D-patta land. Thus, the documentary evidence placed on record, prima facie established that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and he cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law.

¶15

7. In Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By

¶16

Lrs. & Anr¹ , Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh² and Munshi

¶17

Ram v. Delhi Administration³ , the Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶18

“…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.”

¶19

Applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, it is a fit case to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject land except by due process of law.

¶20

In the result, the petition is allowed declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 is illegal, arbitrary and consequentially directed the respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

Date: 12.10.2021 MP

¶24