Allowed

B.Vasudeva Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Oct 2021WP/23676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a writ of Mandamus preventing respondent authorities from dispossessing petitioners of their private agricultural land in Chittoor District unless due process of law is followed, declaring such action arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed not to dispossess petitioners from the specified land except by due process of law.

B.Vasudeva Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23676 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 particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in making efforts for dispossessing the petitioners from their private land situated in Survey No.114/11 & 92/1 to an extent of 0.11 cents and 1.05 cents of Perumallapalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners except procedure established by law and pass such order ...”

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that the land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents and Ac.1.05 cents situated in Survey Nos.114/11 and 92/1 of Perumallapalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, is a private land and they succeeded the property from their ancestors. The petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land for many years. The latest 1B register and adangal reflect the name of the 1^st petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents situated in Survey No.114/11 and revenue records shown the name of the 2^nd petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents situated in Survey No.92/1. The 1^st petitioner is brother-in-law of the 2^nd petitioner and the 1^st petitioner has executed a gift deed in favour of the 2^nd petitioner; and upon such execution the 2^nd petitioner name is mutated into revenue records. While things stood thus, taking

¶7

¶8

advantage of local politics, the respondent authorities are making efforts to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law. Hence, interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as prayed by the petitioners.

¶9

Adangal copies obtained on 09.08.2021 prima facie established that the land in Survey No.92/1 to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents registered in the name of C.Kumari-2^nd petitioner as enjoyer and pattadar and source of acquisition is shown as ‘purchase’. Land in Survey No.114/11 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents is recorded in the name of B.Vasudeva Reddy- 1^st petitioner herein as enjoyer and pattadar and the source of ownership is inheritance. These two documents obtained on 09.08.2021 and 02.10.2021 prima facie established that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and they cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law.

¶10

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:-

¶11

“…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.”

¶12

In view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land to an

¶13

1 Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997

¶14

2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

¶15

3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

¶16

¶17

extent of Ac.0.11 cents and Ac.1.05 cents situated in Survey Nos.114/11 and 92/1 of Perumallapalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, except by due process of law.

¶18

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the highhanded action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents and Ac.1.05 cents situated in Survey Nos.114/11 and 92/1 of Perumallapalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, except by due process of law.

¶19

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶20

______________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶21

Date: 20.10.2021 Ivd

¶22

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.23676 OF 2021

¶25