ORDER:

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking the following reliefs:

<… to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from land admeasuring Ac.1.05 cents situated in Sy.No.469/2 of Chilakalapudi Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power violation of principles of natural justice violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land...=

2. The case of the petitioner in precise is that originally one Kancherlapalli Nancharaiah was a political sufferer and was assigned with land admeasuring Ac.2.08 cents situated in Sy.NO.456/2 and Ac.2.85 cents situated in Sy.No.469/2 totally admeasuring Ac.4.93 cents of Chilakalapudi Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, vide proceedings No.Rais563-48PSR-II, dated 26.02.1952. The said Nancharaiah had sold an extent of Ac.3.05 cents in R.S.No.469/2 to G.Venkata Subbaiah under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.460/1970, dated 02.03.1970. The said Venkata Subbaiah had sold an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in R.S.No.469/2 to Sri Ranganayakulu under a registered sale deed vide document No.1643/1982, dated 29.04.1982 and remaining Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.469/2 to Ramanamma under a registered sale deed vide document No.1644/1982, dated 29.04.1982. After the death of said Sri Ranganayakulu and his wife Ramanamma, their children had sold the entire extent of Ac.3.05 cents in R.S.No.469/2 to father of the petitioner M.Srinivasa Rao. Father of the petitioner executed a registered will, dated 11.02.2015, in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the land admeasuring Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.No.469/2 of Chilakalapudi Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District. After the death of his father on 21.04.2016, the petitioner became absolute owner and possessor of the subject land by doing agricultural activities. While the matter stood thus to the utter shock of the petitioner, on 17.07.2021 the respondent authorities had erected a board in the petitioner’s land alleging that the said land belongs to the respondents and trespassers if any would be prosecuted. The subject land is purely a private land and the respondent authorities does not have any power of whatsoever nature to enter and to erect such a board in petitioner’s land. Even in the information furnished on 22.10.2020 under the RTI Act by the Agriculture Department, with regard to the names registered under e-crop, specifically admits that the petitioner is the pattadar of the subject land. Therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land without following the due process of law. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. The material placed on record with patta copy, dated 26.02.1952, registered sale deeds, registered Will, dated 11.02.2015 and in the information furnished on 22.10.2020 under the RTI Act by the Agriculture Department are clearly established prima facie that the property of the petitioner is purely a private patta land and he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

5. It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly as held 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, 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.=

6. Having regard to the facts