A person in settled possession of a property cannot be dispossessed by authorities without following the due process of law, as such action violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondent No.2, in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated in the Sy. No.24/3D2, of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without initiating any proceedings as per due process of law, as illegal, void, and unconstitutional as illegal, arbitrary, and a violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-Aof the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to follow due process of law

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K KEDHARNATH CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

This Court made the following

ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“..to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondent No.2, in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated in the Sy.No.24/3D2, of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without initiating any proceedings as per due process of law, as illegal, void, and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to follow due process of law...”

2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land, without following due process of law.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in the possession of subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of 0.017 Hectares (approx. 200 Sq. Yds) in Sy.No.24/3D2 (old Sy.No.24/342) of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the subject land through a registered sale deed (Doc.No.1736/1982) and has been in peaceful possession for nearly 42 years.

5. While so, the 2nd respondent’s interference is based on flawed assumption that the land is “Inam.”. However, for land to be treated as Devasthanam property under the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, a Ryotwari Patta must be issued in their favour. Without a valid Patta, the 2nd Respondent has no locus standi to disturb a settled possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is a well settled principle of law that even if there is a dispute over title, a party in settled possession cannot be evicted or harassed except by “due process of law”. He further submits that the 2nd Respondent is attempting to bypass the Revenue Authorities (M.R.O) and use highhanded tactics to interfere with petitioner's possession. Hence the writ petition

6. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s constitutional right guaranteed