Allowed

Golla Manjula v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jul 2021WP/995/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought relief against arbitrary eviction attempts from a government-recognized residential shed allotted under the Below Poverty Line scheme. The court held that a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed without adhering to due process of law.

What did the court decide?

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

Golla Manjula Vs State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.995 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the highhanded action of the respondents in trying to interfere and evict the petitioner from residential shed in plot No.7 in Sy.No.590 of Chembumaiahapeta, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India pass such other order...”

¶6

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the then

¶7

Government in the year 2007 conducted survey for recognizing the persons living under the below poverty line and also the persons who have no house and who are not taken any benefit from the Andhra Pradesh Housing Development Corporation and prepared beneficiaries list by the respondent authorities by conducting detailed survey.

¶8

Accordingly, the respondents identified that the petitioner is eligible person for allotting house site of an extent of Ac.0.03 cents and prepared beneficiaries list and the Government recognised her possession for more than 12 years in plot No.7 in Sy.No.590 of Chembumaiahapeta, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District and her name is at Sl.No.1811.

¶9

After thorough verification, petitioner’s verification status was recognised and allotted an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Plot No.7 in Sy.No.590 of Chembumaiahapeta, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District vide patta No.1811/1406, dated 29.06.2007 by the 4^th respondent and issued house site possession certificate to her. Since, then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the

¶10

¶11

same without let or hindrance. The petitioner is not violating any conditions imposed by the authorities.

¶12

The local ruling political leaders have pressurized the authorities concerned to evict the petitioner from the premises and also they are declaring that they will allot the petitioner’s house site along with the shed therein to the others. The petitioner contending that the respondents have no right to evict her from the house and site premises of an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Plot No.7 in Sy.No.590 of Chembumaiahapeta, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, without following due process of law.

¶13

During hearing, Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue requested to pass appropriate order based on the possession certificate and other material.

¶14

The petitioner is claiming to be in permissible possession of the property alleging that the respondents are highhandedly dispossessing her from the subject property. The claim of the petitioner is based on Patta No.1811/1406, dated 29.06.2007, whereby the Tahsildar certified that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Plot No.7 in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.590 of Chembumaiahapeta, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

¶15

¶16

To substantiate the same, the petitioner produced a copy of the beneficiaries list issued by the Tahsildar and a copy of the document of residential house recognition of possession with translation. Thus, the material on record prima facie establishes that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property in terms of the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar.

¶17

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:-

¶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

By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment and considering the documents produced by the petitioner along with this writ petition, I find it is a fit case to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, except by due process of law.

¶20

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, declaring the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directed the respondents not to dispossess the

¶21

1 AIR 2004 SC 4609

¶22

2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299

¶23

3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408

¶24

¶25

petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

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

¶27

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶28

Date: 23.07.2021 VSL

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.995 OF 2021

¶32

Date: 23.07.2021 VSL

Golla Manjula v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Manjula v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yerragudi Chinna Venkata Subbamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Anwar Hussain, Kurnool Dist and Another Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 4 Ot

D. Narsimhulu, Kurnool Dist., and Anr. Vs the State of a.P.,Stamps,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Smt. Valluru Geetha Mounika, Vs the State of Ap

Smt. Kandregula Sanyasamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddy Venkata Krishna, W.G. Dist Vs Prl Secy, Registration and Stamps (Revenue) Dept, Hyd and 2 Ot