Deprivation of property without the authority of law violates Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; the State must follow due process of law or statutory acquisition procedures before dispossessing a lawful owner.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in encroaching and dispossessing the petitioners from the land in Sy No.463 to an extent of Ac 2.00 Gts. out of Ac.13.12 Gts. situated at Palle Bugurj Village of Narayanpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as illegal, arbitrary, violates the fundamental right of petitioners guaranteed U/A 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in Sy No. 463 to an extent of Ac 2.00 Gts. out of Ac.13.12 Gts. situated at Palle Bugurj Village of Narayanpet Mandal and Town Mahabubnagar District……”

2.1. The brief facts, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that their family originally owned and possessed land admeasuring Ac.13.12 guntas in Survey No.463, situated at Palle Bugurj Village, Narayanpet Mandal and Town, Mahabubnagar District. The said property was inherited from their father, late Sri Gattu Gajalappa. Subsequently, the property was partitioned among the legal heirs, and in the year 2010, certain extents were transferred in favour of various family members and third parties through duly registered gift deeds. Pursuant thereto, the respective transferees have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. The revenue records, including khasra pahani, pattadar passbooks, and title deeds, consistently reflect the names of the petitioners and their family members as lawful owners and possessors of the subject land.

2.2. While matters stood thus, when the petitioners undertook construction activities over their respective extents, Respondent No.3, namely the District Fire Officer, obstructed such activities and allegedly attempted to excavate the land using machinery and to enclose an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas by constructing a compound wall, claiming that the said land had been allotted to him by the authorities.

2.3. The petitioners categorically assert that the subject land is private patta land and that the respondents have no manner of right, title, or lawful authority to interfere with or encroach upon the same. It is further stated that proceedings relating to the subject land are under challenge, and an appeal is presently pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Survey No.463 forms an integral part of their private patta land, duly owned and possessed by them and their family members. Their title and possession are substantiated by valid revenue records and registered conveyances, which carry presumptive evidentiary value under settled principles of revenue jurisprudence.

3.2. It is submitted that the respondents have no semblance of right, title, or authority over the subject land. The actions of the respondents in attempting to excavate and forcibly occupy the land without issuing prior notice or initiating proceedings in accordance with law are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice.

3.3. Such high handed conduct constitutes unlawful interference with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property. It is specifically pleaded that the impugned actions infringe the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

3.4. The petitioners further emphasize that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a valuable constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation thereof can only be effected by authority of law. Reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1, wherein it was held that any