Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31194/2024 of C SEENAPPA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 December 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 31194/2024 Between: C Seenappa ...PETITIONER
APHC010598072024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3329]AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 31194/2024
Between:
C Seenappa
The State Of Ap and Others
AND
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
WRIT PETITION No.31194 of 2024
This Court made the following
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner for the following relief:
“..to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in influencing and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.147/4A/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.157/4D/1, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy. No.157/4B/1, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.157/4C/1 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.157/5/1 i.e., total extent of Ac.2.07 cents of Chinnaridoddi Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.147/4A/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.157/4D/1, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy. No.157/4B/1, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.157/4C/1 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.157/5/1 i.e., total extent of Ac.2.07 cents of Chinnaridoddi Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District 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 in possession of his land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.
4. The petitioner purchased agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.147/4A/1, Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.157/4D/1, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy. No.157/4B/1, Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.157/4C/1 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.157/5/1 i.e., total extent of Ac.2.07 cents of Chinnaridoddi Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District from one Abdul Subhan, B. Ibrahim and another vide document bearing No.1162/2011, dated 18.03.2011 and on 27.09.2013 under a unregistered sale deed. But, as seen from the relief claimed by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 on political influence, at the behest of the unofficial respondents the Respondent No.4 is interfering with the possession of the Petitioner on the guise of conducting of survey.
5. 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 violating 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 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, 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.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
31.12.2024 krk
174
WRIT PETITION No.31194 of 2024
Dt:31.12.2024
krk