Beesham Harinath, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Beesham Harinath, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with consent of both counsel: respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, if he is in possession, except by due process of law; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can dispossess the petitioner from his land (Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.10.39 cents in Survey No.2/1 of Putlapalli/Putlampalli Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District) without following due process of law, despite his settled possession.

Court's answer

When a petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of property, the State/respondents are not entitled to interfere with that possession; such interference deprives constitutional rights under Articles 300-A and 14. Even assuming the possession is illegal, the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity before any action is taken; a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, except by due process of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.7567 of 2025 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; decided 21.03.2025 by Hon'ble Sri Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda) - Beesham Harinath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Petitioner claimed absolute ownership and possession of Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.10.39 cents in Survey No.2/1 of Putlapalli (spelt Putlampalli in the fact paragraph) Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, inherited from his ancestors. He complained that survey staff repeatedly visited without notice, conducted survey, fixed boundary stones claiming his land for third parties, and threatened forcible eviction with police force; respondents 3 to 6 were insisting that he vacate. During hearing, counsel sought a direction not to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law, without touching merits; the learned Assistant Government Pleader admitted continued possession of the petitioner and undertook to follow due process. Holding: where a person is in settled possession and enjoyment of property, respondents are not entitled to interfere; such high-handed action violates Article 300-A besides Article 14; even assuming possession is illegal, opportunity must precede action, and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs, 2004 (1) SCC 769, a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process. Respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioner, if in possession, except by due process of law. Petition disposed of with consent of both counsel; no costs; interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

1

APHC010148722025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3329]

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 7567/2025

Between:

Beesham Harinath,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.RAJENDRA C

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO.7567 of 2025

This Court made the following

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking the following relief:

“..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly the respondents 3 to 6 in insisting petitioner to vacate from his landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.10.39 cents in Survey No.2/1 of Putlapalli Revenue Village in Kadapa Mandal of YSR Kadapa District, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over his said landed property and pass...”

2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is continuing the possession of subject land and the respondents

3

authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.10.39 cents in Survey No.2/1 of Putlampalli Revenue Village in Kadapa Mandal of YSR Kadapa District, having succeeded the same from petitioner’s ancestors. While things stood thus, from the last three weeks, the survey staff of respondents has been repeatedly visiting subject property and without giving any notice to the petitioner conducted survey and fixed boundary stones in the subject property and claiming petitioner’s part of land as belonged to third parties and further threatened the petitioner that if the petitioner violate their direction, they come with the police force after a week and see that petitioner would be evicted forcibly. Hence the writ petition.

5. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner’s possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity before taking appropriate action and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “ Rame

4

Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs .¹ , when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, except by due process of law.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

21.03.2025 krk

1 2004 (1) SCC 769

5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

109

WRIT PETITION NO.7567 of 2025

21.03.2025

krk