A person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly without following due process of law, as it would violate human rights and the constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

".....to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents 4 and 5 in interfering and attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his property in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of agriculture dry land situated in R.S.No.101/1 of Badagam Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District, as illegal, arbitrary, unethical, unconstitutional, breach of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over his property in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of agriculture dry land situated in R.S.No.101/1 of Badagam Village, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law and pass such other order..."

2. The petitioner is claiming to be owner of the property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in R.S.No.101/1 of Badagam Vilage, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District. But, the respondents are unduly interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property without following due process of law. The petitioner produced 1-B (ROR) obtained on 19.06.2021 and 23.02.2021 to establish that he is the registered owner of the land and his name is mutated in 1-B (ROR). Besides these two documents, Pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in his favour for the land. Adangal/Pahani for fasili 1430 obtained on 30.06.2021 placed on record would clinchingly show that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thus, the material placed on record prima facie establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and interference of the respondents with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the property is illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard both counsel.

4. It is 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. & Anr, (2004) AIR SC 4609, Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh,1975 SCR 299 (1975 AIR 1674 = ) and Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 408 (1968 AIR 702 =), the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"...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."

5. In view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.