Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J.
Thanthadi Bhanumathi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.7715 and 9988 of 2021
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Dispute over property possession - Petitioners claimed rights over the same property based on different possession certificates, leading to rival allegations of encroachment - Court directed a survey to ascertain the actual ground position and determine the authenticity of the possession certificates. (Paras 3, 11, 14)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a proper inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of possession certificates before drawing adverse conclusions. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, one a physically disabled woman and the other a neighboring property owner, both claimed possession of land in Kakinada based on possession certificates issued in their favor. The authorities raised doubts about the authenticity of these certificates.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered a survey to determine the actual boundaries and extents of the properties claimed by the petitioners, ensuring due process is followed.
Issues: The main issues were the authenticity of the possession certificates and whether the properties claimed by the petitioners were the same or different.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a proper survey must be conducted to resolve the dispute over property possession and ascertain the genuineness of the possession certificates.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for a survey.
Key Points: - The court directed a survey to ascertain actual ground position and determine authenticity of possession certificates. (!) - The survey must be conducted in the presence of both petitioners, with prior notice, following due process, and within four weeks. (!) - The authorities should not draw adverse conclusions about genuineness of possession certificates without proper inquiry and due process. (!) - The certificates pertain to the same land; authenticity in doubt due to non-traceable original files, necessitating verification. (!) (!) (!) - If surveys show properties are distinct, the petitioner may apply afresh for permissions (e.g., for construction/compound wall) as per law. (!) - Writ petitions disposed of with directions for survey; no costs awarded; interlocutory applications to be closed. (!) (!)
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
Since the petitioners in both these writ petitions have raised rival allegations of encroachment against each other over the property which is said to have been assigned to them under possession certificates, both these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.7715 of 2021 is filed by one Thanthadi Bhanumathi. One D. Ramaraju, who is arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said writ petition, is the petitioner in W.P.No.9988 of 2021. Thanthadi Bhanumathi (petitioner in W.P.No.7715 of 2021) is arrayed as respondent No.5 in W.P.No.9988 of 2021.
3. W.P.No.7715 of 2021, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , is filed seeking the following relief:
“...to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 08.03.2021 under acknowledgment as well as in denial of protection of the right of the petitioner in possession of the land in Door No.17-2-59/79b, Dairy Form Centre, Ward No. 11, Kakinada, East Godavari District in T.S.No.1967 in an extent of 55 Square Yards in possession certificate Ref/B/32/2006 dated 11.04.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to the rules framed under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 as well as oppose to
4. W.P.No.9988 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief:
“...to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not considering the application made online vide No. 51012, dated 02.04.2021 in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 6821 of 2021 dated 23.03.2021 and on the other hand, aiding unofficial Respondents 5 to 7 in encroaching into the land of the Petitioner in an extent of Ac. 0-50 cents forming part of T.S.No.1967 (P) in the Revenue Ward No.11 situated at Dairy Farm, Kakinada- 533001, East Godavari District, which is the vacant patta land allotted to the Petitioner on 04.02.2009 and being assessed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to property tax as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in utter violation of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the online application made by the Petitioner vide No.51012, dated 02.04.2021.”
5. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.7715 of 2021 is as follows:
(i) The petitioner, being a poor lady as well as a physically disabled person and belonging to schedule caste, was assigned 55 square yards of land in T.S.No.1967, Dairy Farm Centre, Ward No.11, Kakinada, and Possession Certificate vide Ref.B/32/2006 dated 11.04.2006 was also issued in her favour. She constructed a thatched house in the said land, to which Door No.17-2-59/79b was allotted, and the property was assessed to property tax and she has been regularly paying the taxes.
(ii) While the matter stood thus, when she intended to construct a shed in the property in the year 2021, the 4th respondent (petitioner in W.P.No.9988 of 2021), who is the neighbouring property owner tried to interfere with her possession alleging that the property belongs to him and since then, he has been making hectic efforts to encroach over her property. Aggrieved thereby, she submitted a representation dated 08.03.2021 to the respondent authorities re
The court mandated a survey to determine property boundaries and validate possession certificates, emphasizing due process in resolving property disputes.
A person in possession of property cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, even if the possession is unauthorized or illegal.
Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for adjudicating disputes regarding property titles; such matters should be resolved through civil courts.
Identification of property is a factual issue to be determined by the competent civil court, and the High Court will not interfere in such matters.
The court cannot interfere in the location/identification of the land when there is a factual dispute and the matter is pending before the civil court.
Possession of property cannot be disturbed without due process; rights must be protected under constitutional provisions, and authorities are bound by statutory timelines and requirements.
The court emphasized the necessity for factual determination before issuing a writ of mandamus for demarcation or measurement, and declined to interfere in the absence of such determination.
The court held that property ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts rather than through writ proceedings when title questions are contested.
The survey and issuance of pattadar passbooks without adhering to principles of natural justice are invalid, necessitating proper notice and opportunity for all parties involved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
