Pappula Padma Sri Kanthi Vs the State of Ap

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYATIRAJ CIRCLE OFFICE Z.P.COMPOUND, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT, AP

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATI RAJ, Z.P.COMPOUND ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT, AP

¶17

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PAU SUB.DIVISION, NEAR DESALAMMA TEMPLE LOCK DOWN, PALAKOL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PAU SUB.DIVISION, NEAR DESALAMMA TEMPLE LOCK DOWN, PALAKOL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP

¶19

2

¶20

NV,J W.P.No.859 of 2019

¶21

ANDEY KASI VISWESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS OCC. CON TRACTOR R / O. SEETHAMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toTo issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in interfering with petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in R.S.No.634/ 1 and Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.634/2 of Mallavaram Village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District, AP and making efforts to dispossess them from the part of the said Iand underthe guise of formation of the road without any manner of right or authority as illegal, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice, contrary 'to law and violative of Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents 2 to 6 not to interfere or dispossess the petitioners from the part of the land out of the land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in R.S.No.634/ 1 and Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.634/2 of Mallavaram Village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District AP pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA

¶30

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

3

¶33

NV,J W.P.No.859 of 2019

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.859 OF 2019

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

¶37

“to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in interfering with petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in R.S.No.634/ 1 and Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.634/2 of Mallavaram Village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District, AP and making efforts to dispossess them from the part of the said Iand underthe guise of formation of the road without any manner of right or authority as illegal, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice, contrary 'to law and violative of Art.300-A of the Constitution of India .”

¶38

The petitioners are the owners of land of an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in R.S.No.634/1 and Ac.2-00 cents in R.S.No.634/2 of Mallavaram Village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District respectively. The petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption whatsoever. The petitioners submits that, the respondents are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners subject land. Questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶39

4

¶40

NV,J W.P.No.859 of 2019

¶41

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

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, in the event the respondents propose to evict the petitioners, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record.

¶44

When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law 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.¹ ”. Therefore, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶45

1 2004 (1) SCC 769

¶46

5

¶47

NV,J W.P.No.859 of 2019

¶48

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the

¶49

consent of both the counsel. No costs.

¶50