When the respondent authorities state on record that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and no steps are being taken to dispossess, the High Court will not grant further relief under Article 226. This approach affirms prevailing precedent regarding the availability and scope of writ jurisdiction in absence of an immediate threat. The decision has binding effect on lower courts dealing with similar administrative law and revenue cases concerning dispossession.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/5497/2022 of Gundluri Munikumaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| CNR | APHC010089312022 |
| Date of Registration | 03-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | B KRISHNA MOHAN |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued restraining dispossession in absence of imminent threat, where authorities confirm no such action. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was filed challenging allegedly highhanded disposal actions by the revenue authorities. The official record, including respondent instructions, established that the petitioner is in peaceful, acknowledged possession for a decade, with proper revenue records. No dispossession proceedings were pending or contemplated against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the High Court held that no further relief is warranted, as the apprehended threat is unsubstantiated. Recording the assurance by authorities, the petition was disposed of without costs. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None expressly mentioned in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on the official instructions placed on record by the respondent authorities, which confirmed the facts. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner alleged imminent dispossession from agricultural land, but the 4th respondent’s official instructions confirmed her long-standing possession (over 10 years) and appropriate documentation (pattadar passbook). No steps for dispossession were being contemplated by state authorities. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; relevant in administrative/revenue law context |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Petitions seeking preventive orders against dispossession must be supported by actual, imminent threat.
- If the State or authority, on the record, affirms no dispossession is contemplated, High Courts may summarily dispose of the writ petition.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that writ relief is unnecessary where facts disclose no live controversy or imminent official action.
- Practitioners should ensure documentary evidence or credible apprehension before approaching under Article 226 in land/revenue disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner complained of highhanded eviction by revenue authorities despite long-standing possession and holding of pattadar passbook.
- Respondent authorities, through official instructions dated 20.08.2025, clarified that petitioner has been in possession for 10 years; no eviction action had been initiated.
- The court found that, since there was no real or imminent threat of dispossession and the State confirmed the petitioner’s rights and possession, no further judicial orders or relief were warranted.
- The writ was disposed of accordingly, recording the State’s assurance and without imposing costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged highhanded action by revenue officials threatening eviction from agriculture land.
- Sought a writ to prevent dispossession in violation of rights under Articles 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution.
Respondent (State/Revenue Officials)
- Asserted, based on official instructions dated 20.08.2025, that petitioner is in undisturbed possession for more than 10 years.
- Stated that pattadar passbook has been issued in petitioner’s name with recognized possession by authorities.
- Clarified that no dispossession action has been initiated or is contemplated.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an agriculturist, filed a writ petition alleging threat of eviction from land measuring Ac.4.14 cents in Survey No. 711/12, Motumallela village, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner grounded her right on long-standing possession and issuance of pattadar passbook. The revenue authorities responded on record, confirming the petitioner’s possession and clarifying that no steps to dispossess had been taken or were proposed.
Statutory Analysis
- The writ petition was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Reference was made to Article 19, 21, and 300-A for protection of property and personal rights.
- No further statutory provisions or interpretations were discussed in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment records a procedural approach wherein, upon the respondent’s official instructions confirming the petitioner’s possession, the writ petition was immediately disposed of without deeper adjudication.
- Miscellaneous petitions, if any, connected to the main writ were also disposed of as a sequel.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court reaffirmed that absence of an imminent threat eliminates the need for further judicial relief.
Citations
- No SCC/AIR/MANU or other formal citations provided in the judgment.
- Decision in: WP/5497/2022, CNR: APHC010089312022, Judgment dated 02-09-2025.