Gujju Appala Narasamma vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that when petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of property, respondents are not entitled to interfere with that possession and enjoyment without following due process of law. Such highhanded action would amount to depriving the petitioners' constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300-A and would also be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even if the possession were considered illegal, the petitioners are still required to be afforded an opportunity before any action is taken. The Court relied on the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. The respondents were directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' subject property without following the due procedure contemplated under the law. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

Facts

The petitioners, Gujju Appala Narasamma and others, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent respondent authorities from dispossessing them from their land situated at Survey No. 1/2 in Chittivalasa Cherukupalli Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners contended that the authorities were attempting to dispossess them without following due process of law, which they argued was illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioners also cited the Supreme Court case of Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel requested a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them without due process. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents admitted that the petitioners were in continuous possession and assured that due process would be followed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their land without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby infringing their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and constitutional rights). Petitioner's contention: The authorities' actions are illegal and arbitrary as they are not following the established procedure and are violating principles of natural justice. They rely on the Apex Court's decision in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu. Respondent's contention: The respondents admitted the petitioners' continuous possession and assured that due process of law would be followed. They did not contest the legal arguments presented by the petitioners.