Disposed

Pothani Lakshmaiah, S/o. P.Ramaiah, v. The Tahsildar

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2022WP/8218/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 226, the Court directed respondents not to interfere with or dispossess petitioners from government lands without following due process of law, citing Supreme Court precedents on property rights and Article 300A.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioners' possession and enjoyment of subject lands without following due process of law as contemplated under law.

Pothani Lakshmaiah, S/o. P.Ramaiah, Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8218 of 2015

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners lands to an extent of Ac.2.88 cents in Survey No. 107/B each, Ac.1.44 cents situated at Pathegad Village, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands to an extent of Ac.2.88 cents in Survey No.107/B each Ac.1.44 cents situated at Pathegad Village, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District, without due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case …”

¶6

The Writ Petitioners also sought for an Interim Relief directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the subject land, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has passed an Interim Order on 27.03.2015, which is as follows:

¶7

„Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Post after one(01) week in the Motion List. Till then, Status Quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained‟.

¶8

The petitioner’s claim is only to follow the due process of

¶9

law, in case the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their lands.

¶10

¶11

The respondent No.1 filed counter, denying the contention

¶12

of the petitioners that the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands. The subject lands are primafacie Government lands and Government being the ultimate authority and sole custodian is empowered to take possession of the subject lands, in accordance with the provisions of Acts and Rules and under due process of law. The petitioners have tried to utilize the land for non-agricultural purposes by constructing house and tried to form layout in the Government Land for their own benefits and the subject lands were alienated on a series of occasions and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶13

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that respondent-authorities will follow due process of law, if at all the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands.

¶14

It is also 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.

¶15

1 AIR 2004 SC 4609

¶16

¶17

State of Uttar Pradesh² and Munshi Ram v. Delhi

¶18

Administration³ , the Supreme Court held as follows:-

¶19

“…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.”

¶20

Though there are several allegations in the writ petition, the truth or otherwise of the allegations need not be adjudicated by this Court, in view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and also by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment to the present facts of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands, if at all they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, without following due process as contemplated under law.

¶21

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22