ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION OF MANDAMUS WITH DIRECTIONS, FILED AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES FOR TRYING TO DEMOLISH THE SHOP OF PETITIONER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Battula Drsv Sanyasirao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
BENCH – HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No. 13116 OF 2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
INTRODUCTION
This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ Order in Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents who were trying to demolish the shop of Petitioner without issuing any notice. The petitioner was in possession and of his land situated in Panduru village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam district and Respondents were further trying to evict the Petitioner from the said property which is arbitrary, unlawful, illegal, in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and Rules made thereunder by consequently directing the Respondents not to interfere with the property of the Petitioner except under due process of law.
The main provision followed in this case are as follows: –
ARTICLE 226
The Indian High Courts have the authority to issue writs under Article 226 in order to enforce the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution. These writs include certiorari, quo warranto, prohibition, habeas corpus, and mandamus.
Everybody and every authority under the High Court’s jurisdiction is granted the authority granted by Article 226. This includes the government. Regardless of the location of the government, authority, or person against whom the writ is sought, it also permits any High Court to employ this power even if the cause of action partially arises inside its territorial jurisdiction.
In general, Article 226 gives the Indian High Courts broad authority to defend basic rights and uphold the rule of law within their respective domains.
ARTICLE 300-A
Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
FACTS
The agricultural land was located in Panduru village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam, and the petitioner was its sole owner. The petitioner has erected a tiny-thatched hut on the front of the subject land and has been operating a fruit-selling business there for several years, conducting business which is in the Panchayat, Revenue, and R&B Departments.
Due to some village politics, the Panchayat, Revenue and Roads and Buildings authorities to cause loss to the petitioner, they have planned to demolish the shop of the petitioner and to grab the land, as if property falls within the road margin. Then the Panchayat and R&B staff came to the subject property and demanded to remove the shop, failing which, they will take steps to remove the shop on 03.05.2023, without any notice and without following due process of law. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that they are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s subject property and further they will follow due process of law. He also submitted that the issue will be resolved once survey is conducted.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble court has disposed this writ petition with the following directions: –
1) In the presence of the petitioner or his representatives, the third respondent (The Assistant Executive Engineer) shall perform a survey and fix the boundaries of the subject property with the assistance of Revenue officials.
2) Notice must be given to the petitioner in order to be present when the survey is conducted.
3) The respondents would be free to take the proper legal action if it turned out after the survey was performed that the petitioner had infringed.
4) The above exercise must be finished within eight (8) weeks of receiving a copy of this order, and during that time, the respondents are forbidden from interfering or ejecting the petitioner from the subject property without first following the rules’ requirements for due process of law.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”