Allowed

Sarvani Rahamathulla Khan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Aug 2021WP/2822/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders non-declaratory of the action of directing the petitioner not to enter agriculture lands and direct respondents not to dispossess. The court held a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. The petitioner was directed not to be dispossessed, though no proposal to take possession existed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land except by due process of law.

Sarvani Rahamathulla Khan, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITON NO.2822 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 thereby directing petitioner not to enter the respective Agriculture lands each admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.37 cents in Sy.No.304 situated at Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, YSR District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land and pass such other orders. …. ”

¶7

Though the petitioner made several allegations in the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the truth or otherwise in those allegations need not be adjudicated by this Court, in view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the respondent authorities will follow due process of law. The documents produced before this court, clearly established that the petitioner, prima facie possession and enjoyment of the property and thus, the person who is in settled possession, cannot be dispossessed, except by due process of law.

¶8

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:-

¶9

“…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

¶10

1 AIR 2004 SC 4609

¶11

2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

¶12

3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

¶13

¶14

constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.”

¶15

Hence, recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject land, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner, 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: 25-08-2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

WRIT PETITON NO.2822 of 2021