ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:-

the said property in any manner and pass such other.=

2. It is the case of petitioner that they are the absolute owners, possessors and enjoyers of house and the structures existing in the property situated in an extent of 320 Sq. yards, covered by Plot Nos.98 and 99, Sy.No.180 of Peda Gantyada, Peda Gantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Originally, Plot No.98 to an extent of 160 Sq.yards was assigned in the name of 1st petitioner’s mother by name Chinipilli Dalamma, who is the 2nd petitioner herein and Plot No.99 to an extent of 160 Sq. yards was assigned in the name of his grandfather vide assignment pattas, dated 02.10.1991. In the oral partition among the sons of his grandfather, the said extent of 160 Sq. yards was given towards share of his father since it is contiguous plot to the other plot assigned in the name of his mother, 2nd petitioner herein. While the things stood thus, on 03.08.2021, at about 11.00 AM, the staff of the respondents along with bulldozer came to the subject house property and demolished certain part of the compound wall existing around it. Aggrieved by the action of respondents, present writ petition is filed questioning the highhanded act of the respondents, without following due process of law and requested to issue a direction as stated above.

heed their request.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated their contentions.

5. Heard both the counsel.

6. As seen from the documents placed on record, Patta was granted in favour of Chinipilli Dalamma, 2nd petitioner herein, assigning the land in an extent of 160 Sq. yards in Plot No.99 in Sy.No.180 of Peda Gantyada Village, Peda Gantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, but the column meant for boundaries left blank. Similarly, patta was granted in favour Chinipilli Srinivasa Reddy, assigning the land in an extent of 160 Sq. yards in Plot No.98 in Sy.No.180, without mentioning the boundaries. Based on these documents, the petitioners are claiming title over the property. Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the house tax demand notice issued in the name of Chinipilli Srinivasa Reddy on 31.03.1997 and electricity consumption bill evidencing payment of electricity consumption charges.

7. The documents placed on record would clinchingly establish that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and the property was assessed to tax. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that it is only a vacant site and no house is constructed therein. This fact is false in view the photographs, where a building is existing. But, it is difficult to identify the building which the petitioners are claiming is one and the same based on the photographs. In any view of the matter, the material placed on record prima facie establish that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue also in the written instructions admitted that the petitioners are in possession more than what they are claiming.

8. Therefore, the petitioners by placing sufficient material established that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and they cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr1, Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration3, wherein 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.=

9. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the act of the respondents to demolish the compound wall with the aid of bull