Allowed

Samireddi Govind v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Aug 2021WP/6005/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition declares that forcibly dispossessing a citizen of private property without due process violates Article 300-A. Finding the petitioner in settled possession with prima facie evidence, the court restrained the respondents from dispossession.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess petitioner from subject property except by due process of law.

Samireddi Govind Vs the State of Ap — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.6005 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

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

¶5

“… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents trying to dispossess the petitioner from his house along with open place in Assessement No.3633 in an extent of 128.81 square yards of RCC building area, 126.02 square yards of vacant site area, the total site area 254.83 square yards in Door No.4-77, Chandrampalem, P.M.Palem Post, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam District-530041 and direct the respondents not to take possession of his own house and vacant land and threatening him to vacate from the house and vacate land i.e., in possession from his ancestors without notice as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India ...”

¶6

The case of the petitioner in precise is that the petitioner’s father late Samireddy Appa Rao is the lawful pattadar and owner of the present house in 128.81 square yards and 126.02 square yards of vacant site area, total site area 254.83 square yards, in assessment No.3633 with d oor No.4-77, Chandrampalem, P.M.Palem Post, Visakhapatnam (Rural), Visakhapatnam District and with the permission of the GVMC, they had constructed a RCC building and regularly paying house tax and electricity bill and they are living in the said property peacefully. After the death of father and brother of the petitioner, the petitioner became lawful owner of the said property. As it is a hereditary property from his ancestors from the long years and he is regularly paying house tax

¶7

¶8

as well as electricity bill till date, the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his property without any notice is illegal and arbitrary and requested to issue a direction.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶10

The material placed on record with a particular plan, house tax receipts evidencing property tax, electricity consumption charges and aadhar card are clearly established prima facie the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

¶11

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:-

¶12

“…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 300-A of the Constitution.”

¶13

In view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above and as the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶14