IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Budda Pydithallamma, W/o. Sri Tarakaram - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary, Department of Revenue (Endowment-I) Secretariat, Hyderabad and Another - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.24625 Of 2012 & 21398 Of 2012
Decided On : 20-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners sought regularization of their occupation of land in Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam District, claiming illegal interference by the respondents - The court found the respondents' actions arbitrary and illegal, directing them not to dispossess the petitioners without due process. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Government Orders - The court noted that G.O.Ms.No.578 was intended for regularization of encroachments for a specific period, which had ended, and was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.253. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed peaceful possession of land and sought regularization under G.O.Ms.No.578, which the respondents denied, citing encroachment issues and previous court orders.
Findings of Court:
The court declared the respondents' interference as illegal and arbitrary, directing them to respect the petitioners' possession until due process is followed.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the respondents' actions regarding the petitioners' land occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the respondents must follow due process before dispossessing the petitioners, reaffirming the principle of legal protection against arbitrary actions.
Result: Writ Petitions disposed of in favor of the petitioners.
ORDER :
(K. MANMADHA RAO, J.)
WP No.24625 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief:
WP No.21398 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief:
2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
3. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.24625 of 2012 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are having an extent of 200 sq.yds., each in Sy No.275 of Adivivaram, Visakhapatnam District. As per municipal records they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The Government pursuant to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court, issued G.O.Ms.No.578 Revenue (Endowments-IV), dated 19-8-2000 prescribing guidelines and the amounts that are to be collected for regularization and issuance of no objection certificate by the 2nd Respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Respondents with an application on 30-5-2012 to regularize occupation of their land owned and possessed by them, who in-turn refused to receive applications, despite clear directions of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.578, dated19-8-2000. Though the application of the petitioners has been received by the 2nd respondent, he did not pass any orders nor is allowing the petitioners to make any constructions, though the land owned by them a patta land. The petitioners submitted plan for proposed construction of the building on the said land and basing on the approved plan, the petitioners constructed the building and they are regularly paying the municipal tax. It is further stated that the officers of the 2nd Respondent visited the subject land several times and found that it is a patta land, but not issuing NO OBJECTION certificate for the purpose of making permanent construction. On the other hand, the officials of the 2nd Respondent are coming regularly and threatening the petitioners that they will be dispossessed from their land and they will not accept their application. Hence, questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. This Court vide order dated 16.07.2012 in WP No.21398 of 2012, while issuing Notice before admission, has granted interim order that “status quo shall be maintained by both the parties, until further orders”.
6. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in WP No.21398 of 2012. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the respondent Devasthanam is maintaining a land protection wing headed by Assistant Executive Officer to protect the Devasthanam lands situated in 5 villages namely 1) Adivivaram, 2) Vepagunta 3) Venkatapuram 4) Purushothapuram and 5) Cheemalapalli including the lands covered by S.No.275 of Adivivaram(v). The land protection wing is empower
The court ruled that authorities must respect due process before dispossessing individuals from their land, declaring arbitrary actions illegal.
The court established that land regularization claims must be substantiated by ownership rights, which the petitioners failed to demonstrate.
Possession claims must be substantiated by official records, and proper inquiry is essential before dispossession, aligning with natural justice principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.