APHC010596842014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13832/2014 Between: Kancharapu Swathi, ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with lawful possession of the petitioner over the house property bearing Municipal No. 38-23-99/1 covered under Sy.No.105 & 107, Ward No.42, Sriramnagar Colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the principles of natural justice and also in violative of article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the said property, not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.....” 2 The petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing Municipal No.38-23-99/1 in Sy.No.105 and 107, Sriramnagar colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam and considering the eligibility criteria of the petitioner, the revenue authorities after conducting enquiry have issued a land possession certificate to the petitioner and seven others under Indiramma housing Scheme. The petitioner has been in possession of the said property since long time by constructing ACC roofed house and has been paying house tax to the 3rd respondent. While so, the subordinates of the 2nd respondent corporation came to the petitioner’s house property and threatened the petitioner to vacate the premises without any reason and without following due process of law. The action of the respondent in interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner over the property bearing Municipal No No.38-23-99/1, under Sy.No.105 and 107, ward No.42, Sriramnagar colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 4. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 22.01.2025, wherein it is stated that upon verification of the subject property, it was found that the petitioner has unlawfully taken possession of the government revenue land and has constructed a structure with RCC residential ground floor building. The said construction by the petitioner is without legal authorization and without permissions from the competent authorities, which is in violation of building and zoning regulations. Merely affirming that the petitioner is paying property taxes does not confer any legal right or ownership over the land. It is further stated that the petitioner has to vacate the subject land and the RCC residential ground floor building constructed by the petitioner is liable to be demolished. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, though has raised several contentions has argued that the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are trying to evict the petitioner from the subject property and are trying to demolish the building constructed by the petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 6. As per the aforesaid instructions of the 2nd respondent, it can be understood that the petitioners have unlawfully occupied the government revenue land and made illegal constructions over the same. But, however, it is also a fact that though illegal constructions were made, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, no notice was issued before interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.R.s. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs1. 7. In view of the above submissions, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the property bearing Municipal No.38-23-99/1, under Sy.No.105 and 107, ward No.42, Sriramnagar colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law. 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.01.2025 Gss 1 2004 (1) SCC 769