T Sarojamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus : to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in Sy.No.13 for an extent of Ac.4.05 cents situated at Avilala Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District amounts to erroneous arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent not to dispossess the petitioners and to pass ….”

¶24

2

¶25

The case of the petitioners in brief is that the 2^nd respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioners from their lands in Sy.No.13 of an extent of Ac.4.05 cents in Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District despite the rights are decided in the civil suit i.e. O.S.No.105 of 1971 on the file of the II Additional District Munsiff, Tirupati, seeking possession and damages and the said suit was dismissed on 28.12.1976 on the ground that the suit was time barred. The said suit was based on the claim that the land originally belonged to the Hathramji Mutt, which had been managed by successive Mahants. The Assistant Commissioner came to know that the predecessors of the defendant had fraudulently obtained a permanent lease on the land, which was void under the HR & CE Act, 1951, as lease periods beyond five years were invalid. The trial court, after considering the evidence, found that the 2^nd respondent failed to establish ownership of the land and that the defendant’s family had been in possession and enjoyment of the land for over 70 years paying land revenue to the government. Consequently, the suit was dismissed and the rights of the defendant’s family were upheld. The deponent being the grandson of the original defendant asserts that his grandfather, Avilala Govindaiah passed away 24 years ago, leaving behind his sole daughter. The 1^st petitioner became the absolute owner of the land. The petitioners claim to have been in peaceful possession and cultivation of the land ever since. However, the 2^nd respondent attempted to dispossess them on 04.07.2016 and 18.07.2016 and the same was prevented by local elders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶26

3

¶27

Heard Mr. T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

¶28

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners the actions of the respondents are illegal, since the 2^nd respondent had already lost the civil case decades ago and is trying to take possession unlawfully. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners request to pass appropriate orders.

¶29

Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that if at all the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, they will follow due process of law.

¶30

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, if at all respondents intend to take any steps for evicting the petitioners from the scheduled property, they have to follow due process of law. Till then, respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.

¶31