A person in possession of property cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, even if the possession is unauthorized or illegal.

JUDGMENT

1. These two writ petitions are filed by one Appinedi Pothuraju and Sayyed Jany under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land admeasuring 310.25 Sq.Yds and 351 Sq.Yds respectively situated in R.S.R.No.671/1A of Pedana village and mandal, Krishna District without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct respondent No.1 not to interfere with the civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent No.3 over the land referred above.

2. Both these petitions are filed claiming identical relief by different petitioners having different extents of land in the same survey number in Pedana Village and Mandal, Krishna District, and the issue involved in these two petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is expedient to decide both these petitions by common order.

3. The factual matrix in W.P.No.803 of 2021 is as follows:

Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner of the land 310.25 Sq.Yds situated in R.S.R.No.671/1A of Pedana village and mandal, Krishna District with exclusive possession and enjoyment by virtue of Registered Gift Deed bearing Doc.No.865/2011 dated 16.05.2011 executed by his father. Petitioner's father purchased the said land under Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1905/2009, from Chennakcsavula Rambabu and Thota Paideshwar Rao. They have also purchased the said land under Registered Sale Deed from Sala Sreenu. Respondent No.3 herein filed O.S.No.16 of 2011 against her family members and others for partition of the land. The petitioner's land is also part of the item No.2 of the schedule property in the Partition Suit and he was added as defendant No. 14. On contest the said suit was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 filed A.S.No.178 of 2019 and the same is pending before this court. Since there is a threat of encroachment by the neighbours, petitioner intended to clean the bushes in the land and construct the compound wall and house after obtaining the permission from the Municipality. After dismissal of the suit, the petitioner informed the said fact to respondent No.1 and once again started clearance of bushes in his land, but the staff of respondent No.1 office came and directed the petitioner not to do any activity in the land on the ground that A.S.No.178 of 2019 filed by respondent No.3, which is pending before this Court. Respondent No.1 is no way concerned with the dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in A.S.No.178 of 2019 on the file of this Court. Without following due process of law, respondent No.1 is interfering with petitioner's possession and enjoyment at the instance of the respondent No.3, requested to grant relief as claimed in the writ petition.

4. The factual matrix in W.P.No.10612 of 2021 is as follows:

5. The Petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner of the land 351 Sq.Yds situated in R.S.R.No.671/1A of Pedana village and mandal, Krishna District with exclusive possession and enjoyment having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.2167/2014 dated 25.08.2014 executed by his vendor - Mohammed Athavulla. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Corporation issued orders dated 28.01.2018 granted housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- with subsidy benefit of Rs.2,50,000/- sponsored by the Central and State Government. When the petitioner intended to construct house, respondent No.1 without following due process of law is interfering with his possession and enjoyment. When the petitioner raised the tin roof shed in the land, the staff from the office of respondent No.1 without issuing any notice, straightaway demolished the shed. The petitioner erected thatched shed and carrying on mutton business in the said premises. No dispute was raised by any person including the respondent Nos.3 and 4 against possession and enjoyment