Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Sri Nammi Ravi Shankar S/o Late Suryanarayana - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of AP - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16083 Of 2025
Decided On : 03-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anguru Manohar
For the Respondent: GP For Revenue
Demolition of property and dispossession must adhere to due process as mandated by Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution, emphasizing the legal protection of property rights.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, and 300-A - Writ of Mandamus - Petition filed challenging demolition of petitioner's house and dispossession without notice or due process as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner had a land allotment for a house site, which the respondents claimed includes unauthorized encroachment on government land. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
(B) Due Process - The action of the respondents in demolishing the property without due process was challenged, with emphasis on the necessity for legal proceedings in property matters. (Paras 2, 6)
(C) Land Allotment - The court considered the legality of the land allotment and subsequent claims of encroachment in relation to governmental authority over land use. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, assigned a plot for construction, faced demolition of his house due to alleged unauthorized occupation of additional land. The respondents acted without notice, leading to legal challenge.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the need for the respondents to follow due process regarding the land assigned to the petitioner, barring interference without legal proceedings.
Issues: The core issues involved the legality of the demolition without due process, the validity of land allotment, and whether proper procedures were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents must not interfere with the petitioner’s property without adhering to due process mandated by law and confirmed that the respondent's actions lacked legal foundation where due process was not followed.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to refrain from interfering without due process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of possession and allotment (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. government's argument regarding encroachment (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's directive on due process (Para 6) |
| 4. disposition of the writ petition (Para 7) |
ORDER:
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-
“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 in demolishing the petitioner’s house and dispossessing him without notice or due process as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore possession of the subject property to the petitioner and remove the unauthorized board erected therein and pass such other order.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted a plot admeasuring to an extent of 60 Sq. yards in Sy.No.2/1P, Lakshminagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam, in the process of regularization of the encroachments vide proceedings dated 07.06.1998. Pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner got constructed dwelling house and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While things stood thus, the respondents without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, demolishing the structure of the dwelling house in contrary to their own allotment/assignment granted in favour of the petitioner and they also erected a caution board stating that the said land is a Government land. He further submits that once the land is assigned in favour of the petitioner, the respondents cannot change the nature of the land and declare that as Government land. For removal of the same, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the official respondents furnished written instructions dated 02.07.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:
“The complainant was allotted a house site of 60 sq. yards in the said layout, upon which he constructed a dwelling house bearing door No.16-377 which was assessed by GVMC under Assessment NO.1086004229.
It was subsequently brought to notice that complaint had unauthorizedly occupied an additional 34 sq. yards of Government land adjacent to his patta site and constructed an Ac shed, relying on fabricated/fake patta documents.
Upon field inspection, it was confirmed that the encroached portion was reserved as open space for public purpose within the sanctioned EWS layout.
Accordingly, the revenue authorities removed the unauthorized structure and erected a caution board at the site, declaring it as Government property.”
5. Learned Government Pleader for the official respondents further clarified that in so far as the extent that was allotted and regularized is concerned, the respondents are neither interfering nor demolishing any structures of the petitioner’s dwelling house. However, as stated in the written instructions, the petitioner unauthorizedly occupied another extent of 34 sq. yards of land which is adjacent to the petitioner’s land and the possession of the same was taken over by the respondents by demolishing the house thereon and erected a caution board. It is further stated that the respondents are neither interfering nor taking any steps to take over the possession of the property of the petitioner i.e., 60 Sq. yards, which was originally allotted to the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere or affect the petitioner in respect of
