APHC010136612021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7898/2021 Between: 1. GUDDANDI YEDUKONDALU,, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. GINNELA SWAMY BAZAR, CHIMAKURTHY TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, OLD RIMS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, OLD RIMS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 5. THE THASILDAR, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, D NO 7 -104, B -BLOCK, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, PINCODE 521456, ANDHRA PRADESH. RR6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DT 12/12/2022 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA 03/2021. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in insisting petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac.1.97 cents in Sy.No.946/4 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal of Prakasam District, as illegal, irregular irrational, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over his said landed property nor grant the same on mining lease to any third parties and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over landed property of Ac.1.97 cents in Sy.No.946/4 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal of Prakasam District nor grant the same or mining lease to any third parties, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim orders dated.08.04.2021 in IA No.1 of 2021 in WP No.7898 of 2021 and to pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent no.6 as he is the proper and necessary party to the main WP. 7898/2021 and pending interlocutory applications in the interests of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7898 of 2021 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in insisting petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac.1.97 cents in Sy.No.946/4 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal of Prakasam District, as illegal, irregular irrational, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over his said landed property nor grant the same on mining lease to any third parties and pass such other order …”. 2. Sum and substance of the Writ Petition is that petitioner’s father assigned an extent of Ac.1.97 Cents situated in Sy.No.946/4 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal, Prakasam District (hereinafter referred to as “subject land”) vide D.Form Patta dated 15.01.1975 and subsequently, the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Passbook, Title Deed and Adangals in favour of the petitioner’s father namely G.Subba Rao. 3. While in the year 2021, the petitioner’s father passed away and since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. While things stood thus, according to the petitioner, respondent Nos.3 to 5, without giving any prior 4 notice are trying to conduct the survey in the subject land belonging to the petitioner. At that juncture, left with no option, the petitioner instituted the present lis. 4. On 08.04.2021, this Court passed interim direction granting an order of Status Quo in respect of the subject land. 5. Smt. P.Satya Haritha, learned counsel representing Smt. N.Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Status Quo order is still continuing as on today and the petitioner is eking livelihood by raising crops in the subject land. In a nutshell, petitioner contends that the respondent authorities are trying to interfere with the subject land belonging to the petitioner, without following due process of law, which is in gross violation of Articles 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, Smt. Oruganti Sayamma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue basing on the written instructions of the Tahsildar dated 17.03.2026 submits that issuance of D-Form Patta, Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds in favour of the petitioner’s father namely G.Subba Rao was not at all disputed. But as per the request made by mines and geology officers, revenue authorities issued No Objection Certificate 5 (NOC) in the very same survey number i.e., Sy.No.946. In view of the similarity in Survey number, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents are interfering with his rights. She further submits that in any circumstances i.e., overlapping or mistaken impression etc., if NOC granted in respect of petitioner’s land i.e., Ac.1.97 Cents situated in Sy.No.946/4 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal of Prakasam District, the Tahsildar concerned will initiate appropriate steps to cancel the said NOC and communicate the same to the mining authorities. 7. At that juncture, Smt. Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology also conceded with the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 8. Indisputably, as all the revenue documents including D- Form Patta, Pattadar Passbook, Title Deed and Adangal stands in the name of the petitioner’s father, namely G.Subba Rao, in respect of subject land which was subsequently, inherited to the petitioner namely G.Yedukondalu. Added to that, right from 15.01.1975, the Petitioner’s family is in possession and enjoyment over the subject land and also categorical submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology in preceding paras in the Order. 9. It is apt to note the fundamental basic spirit enunciated in the Article 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also an authoritative dictum articulated in the Lao-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division & Others Vs. Mekala Pandu & Others1. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah2 held as under: 27. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Under our constitutional scheme, compliance with a fair procedure of law before depriving any person of his immovable property is well entrenched. We are examining this issue in the context of Section 352 of the Act which is bereft of any procedure whatsoever before compulsorily acquiring private property. Again, assuming that Section 363 of the Act provides for compensation, compulsory acquisition will still be unconstitutional if proper procedure is not established or followed before depriving a person of their right to property. We find it compelling to clarify that a rather undue emphasis is laid on provisions of compensation to justify the power of compulsory acquisition, as if compensation by itself is the complete procedure for a valid acquisition. 1 AIR 2004 AP 250 2 2024 SCC Online SC 968 7 28. While it is true that after the 44th Constitutional Amendment [the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978], the right to property drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution, there continues to be a potent safety net against arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms. Despite its spatial placement, Article 300-A11 which declares that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law" has been characterized both as a constitutional and also a human right. To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution. 29. The constitutional discourse on compulsory acquisitions, has hitherto, rooted itself within the "power of eminent domain". Even within that articulation, the twin conditions of the acquisition being for a public purpose and subjecting the divestiture to the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition were mandated. Although not explicitly contained in Article 300-A, these twin requirements have been read in and inferred as necessary conditions for compulsory deprivation to afford protection to the individuals who are being divested of property. A post- colonial reading of the Constitution cannot limit itself to these components alone. The binary reading of the constitutional right to property must give way to more meaningful renditions, where the larger right to property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each with a 8 distinct character but interconnected to constitute the whole. These sub-rights weave themselves into each other, and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that results in the deprivation of private property must be measured against this constitutional net as a whole, and not just one or many of its strands. 30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are: (i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property-the right to notice, (ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition-the right to be heard’ (iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire-the right to a reasoned decision, (iv) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose - the duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate-the right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings-the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and 9 (vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting –the right of conclusion, 31. These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation declares that the law envisaged under Article 300-A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-rights as "procedural", a nomenclature that often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300-A, non-compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law.” “Emphasis supplied” 10. Therefore, Supreme Court as well as multiple High Courts in their constitutional dictum unequivocally held that Right to Property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is not only Constitutional Right but also basic human right too. 11. Taking into account of all the aforesaid facts and submissions advanced by the respective counsels, in the considered opinion of the Court, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following terms: 10 i) The respondents are directed not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner over the subject land i.e., land ad- measuring Ac.1.97 Cents situated in Sy.No.946/4 of Chimakurthy Revenue Village and Mandal of Prakasam District, without following due process of law. ii) The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps, as per the statement given by Smt.Oruganti Sayamma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue as well as Smt. Anusha, Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology that they will initiate appropriate steps to cancel No Objection Certificate (NOC), if at all, there occurs any overlapping with the subject land of the petitioner by following due process of law only. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 18.03.2026 PSA