CHITTABATHINA NARASAMMA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from her land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.547, situated in Marripudi Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land without following due process of law.

(2.) The petitioner is claiming to be owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.547, situated in Marripudi Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. The 4th respondent assigned above said extent of land to the father of the petitioner late Maareddy Venkata Subbaiah under D-Form patta vide F.Dis.No.402/87, dated 14.01.1978, delivered possession of the same to the father of petitioner on the same day and since then her father was in possession and enjoyment of the property during his life time. After the death of said Venkata Subbaiah, the said extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land was devolved upon the petitioner and her two brothers, they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property till 2009 and the petitioner and her two brothers partitioned the joint family properties including the land covered by the alleged assignment and that in the oral partition it was allotted to the share of this petitioner, who in turn constructed a small house, it is south and west corner and that the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While the matter stood thus, respondents 5, 6 and 8 suddenly came to the house of the petitioner and informed that the higher authorities instructed them to take possession of the land for the purpose of construction of Grama Sachivalayam (Village Secretariat) and demanded the petitioner to vacate the land immediately and the petitioner refused for the same. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction as stated supra.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue disputed the very issue of D-Form patta while admitting that they proposed to construct Grama Sachivalayam (Village Secretariat) within Ac.0.20 cents leaving Ac.0.10 cents covered by the house etc., However, the respondents are entitled to take appropriate steps to evict the petitioner from the subject property if the petitioner is in possession of the property and requested to pass appropriate order.